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

Old July 31st, 2012 #181
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew_ View Post
Out of curiosity, are you intimating the parties funding Golden Dawn might have an agenda other than Golden Dawn's public agenda?
To be sure, they all do.

Political parties are tools, not prime movers.
Politicians do not lead, they act on behalf of those who finance them, usually corporations or religious organisations.

One should always step back and look at the historical and geographical context of events, and always follow the money.
European history revolves around mines, trade routes and grainlands.

One also needs to take into account US policy and the Balkans.
Without an understanding of these, nothing happening in Greece will make sense.

GD can win as many seats as they like, and get as many votes as they like, but until they start controlling budgets, they are powerless.

GD are I suspect being financed by some of the military and police backed by some of the Greek Orthodox and behind them the Russian Orthodox churches, which have extensive shareholdings and landholdings in mining and mineral rich areas, as well as extensive trade which relies upon free access to the trade routes in the Adriatic Med and on to the Black sea.

If GD do well, these will then throw their full weight behind them.
If not, they will drop GD and a religious rather than nationalistic party will emerge after GD.

These corporations/organisations do not put all their eggs into one basket, they sit behind most of Greeces smaller parties, whilst the US sits behind the larger ones.

GD had in their early days close links with the military junta that ruled Greece in the sixties/seventies.
Greece's military however had much of their power withdrawn from them after the junta and transferred to the police.

When a group has the support of the police, that does not just mean the police vote for them, it means the police join them, and help organise them. So whilst GD's leader is backed by some of the military, it is also backed by some of the police, which is why there is so much caution shown when approaching it.


Greece's money is in mining and shipping in Greece and Jugoslavia, and this conflict in Jugoslavia and Greece also revolves around control of the Adriatic, which controls trade between Asia, Greece, Jugoslavia, Italy and Austria.

Greek companies have extensive mines in mineral rich Greece naturally, but as importantly, extensive in some cases exclusive mining rights in Jugoslavia especially Kosovo.

Greek mining involvement is especially strong in Kosovo's Stari Trg mining complex, where long term mineral reserves are estimated to be in the region of a trillion zogbucks, especially the coal and lignite reserves Turkey needs.

Now that Albania, which is Turkey's proxy in the area has Kosovo, it's a straight road from mostly Moslem Kosovo into and through Moslem Albania and on to the Adriatic sea, then on to Moslem Turkey.

If the US can via the EU crisis bankrupt Greece and thus its mining companies, it can take over Greek mining companies and their rights in Greece and Jugoslavia, as well as take control of the trade routes between the Black sea, Mediterranean and Adriatic, and then use them to buy Turkeys support.

Turkey has the manpower, but not the mineral resources, to finance and equip them to become a US proxy in the area, and through Turkey the US thinks it will retain control of the Middle East.

Turkey will soon once again make a play for Cyprus, currently divided between Greece and Turkey.


Former Jugoslavia, Greece and Albania are all divided between Catholic, Orthodox and Moslem powers. The Moslems are mostly descended from Turks who ruled over vast parts of the area for centuries. The Balkans were the flashpoint for WW 1, and what happens in the Balkans affects Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and near Asia, as does what happens in Istanbul.

The triangle of Cyprus (where Greece and Turkey have been at war since the 60's), Greece and Istanbul control the trade routes from East to West, as well as North to South.

Britain took down the Turkish empire during WW 1, but it and France and Russia, the former powers in the area, are so exhausted they can barely stand.

The US has rushed to fill the vaccuum, and in exchange for its help with the US in the Middle East, Turkey wants a free hand and it's old empire back in southern Europe.

It's clear the US has agreed to that, partly to gain the Middle East, partly because it needs Europe weak and broken and at war, to prevent Europe demanding its mines in the colonies back, that the US took over as compensation for "aiding" Europe during WW 2.

The US is assisting Turkey politically to retake southern Europe, by pushing the EU to bring Turkey into the EU, and thereby give the Turks and their proxies the Albanians free acces to flood into southern Europe.

It has assisted Turkey militarily, by building up Albania, and by splitting away Kosovo and giving it to Albania i.e. Turkey.

Austria used to rule part of the Balkans, as well as the southern Catholic third of Germany, and it and Germany and to a lesser extent Italy are desperate for minerals and metals to free them from dependence on Russia.

The instant the US goes bankrupt and withdraws its troops from the Balkans, the Catholics, Orthodox and Moslems will once again become involved in a regional war.

That's why the US wants to build up Turkey to retain control once it leaves, and if that means the US thereby hands over a hundred million or so Whites to the Moslems, and destroys Southern Europe, it could not care less.




Most of the events globally involving the uS since the fall of the USSR have been laid out by three Harvard men in their various publications. If one reads those publications, then one can see that US policy has followed those three programmes explicitly since the early nineties. Naturally, behind each programme is a world of research they have conducted, but they had to simplify it for the politicians and military men and NGO's they use.


Zbigniew Brzezinski of the CFR and Trilateral Commission laid out the global US strategy of dividing the world into economic regions based upon trade routes, mineral and oil resources, and then laid out the strategy within each region, in his book The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf

His friend Samuel Huntington of the CFR laid out the strategy that the US would use within the regions in his "clash of civilizations". He identified 8 High Civilizations or Cultures, Sinic i.e. China, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin American, African which were each the core of a grouping of states, that most peoples and cultures fell into.
He then explained how to use the cultures and religions existing in each region, to cause and wage war so as to gain economic control.

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/d_huntington.html


George Soros of the CFR hired Gene Sharp (in my sig) who had been working on non-violent strategies as a means of waging war, to develop these into usable strategies that could be sued in Europe and the Middle East.

Gene Sharps works have been used in the various colour revolutions across Eastern Europe, as well as in every Arab spring revolution, and are being used in several dozen other countries.

Thus the US :

1) looks at Brzezinski's regions to see what mineral and oil reserves there are, as well as what trade routes there are.

2) looks at Huntingtons model to see what civilization it falls into, so they can split it up and cause conflict within the region.

3) uses Gene Sharp's strategies to overthrow the governments of the day and put in US puppets.


However, as always happens, the US does not have the numbers to govern these itself, so uses proxies, and these proxies, who the US has trained and armed, now turn against the US, and strike out on their own.

European countries however have realised that they cannot stop the US from Europe, so are investing heavily in the US, and in the US political field, in order to cause the US to go into a spiral, and as a result of bankruptcy, withdraw from Europe.

Once global powers like Britain France and Spain ruled the Americas. The US needs to keep them weak, bankrupt and divided, to prevent them once again moving back into the Americas.

It is in America's elites interests to destroy Europe.
It is in Europe's elites interests to destroy the US.
It is in Moslem, Chinese and Jewish interests to destroy both Europe and the US.

Most Whites are so besotted with alcohol, drugs, porn and black athletes they do not see the storm clouds brewing.

WN do see the storm clouds brewing, and ethno-nationalism has always been the one force capable of bringing down all empires.

All empires that fall do so when critical states collapse, followed by secession.

Alberta and Quebec have secession movements, as do 28 US states, along with numerous state sovereignty and state rights movements. These are where WN need to concentrate attention and involvement.

The US federal system was designed for 13 mostly British colonies in the 1700's, and a couple of million people, not for 300 million people aross 50 states and a global empire.

It is collapsing, and WN need to make sure WN are capable of becoming the government in waiting in the majority White states.
Governments are controlled by accountants, comptrollers and financial managers.

WN do not need to win elections to run cities and states, WN need to take over and run the key financial and other strategic areas within the civil service, and to focus upon getting the right people in as sheriffs, judges etc.

__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; July 31st, 2012 at 10:06 PM.
 
Old August 1st, 2012 #182
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Default

Thanks. An interesting perspective and not one that I have seen elsewhere. I will read your links.
 
Old August 1st, 2012 #183
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

I guess it would be too simple just to accept that Golden Dawn represents what the people in it say they represent (Greek national-socialism, essentially), and that, having had some electoral successes at the local level where the effects of immigration were most severe, they are finally having some electoral success at the national level because of Greece's financial catastrophe. No, that would be too obvious.

There is no such thing as a grassroots movement, and nationalists can never win anything unless they are really the tool of some hidden sinister force. Isn't that right Hugh?

Last edited by Hadding; August 1st, 2012 at 09:35 PM.
 
Old August 2nd, 2012 #184
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I guess it would be too simple just to accept that Golden Dawn represents what the people in it say they represent (Greek national-socialism, essentially), and that, having had some electoral successes at the local level where the effects of immigration were most severe, they are finally having some electoral success at the national level because of Greece's financial catastrophe. No, that would be too obvious.

There is no such thing as a grassroots movement, and nationalists can never win anything unless they are really the tool of some hidden sinister force. Isn't that right Hugh?
Not so much simple as naive. The forces behind political parties are not usually hidden, nor necessarily sinister.

The purpose of a political party is to put through legislation and gain control over budgets and the civil service.
A highly specialised activity, with a very narrow focus.

Most WN fails because it tries to make one organisation or party be all things to all people, rather than have a group of organisations, each with a specific purpose.

Grassroots organisations occur in one or two areas. GD is in every area, across all of Greece.

By following the money, and looking at their structure and activities, one can see who's behind them, though that can change over time.

We know GD are backed by the police, and by some of the military, who are usually religious people.
We know that the only groups that consistently raise money on a large scale for charity are religious ones, and we know that the groups that give out food on a large scale are religious charities.

GD use the meander as a symbol on their flag, a very ancient Greek symbol symbolising ocean waves, appropriate for a nation of which about half is made up of islands.

So we see they are being led by religious, historically aware and nationalist people, these types of people are usually found amongst religious, police and military type organisations.

Thus it's not difficult to see that this event and most probably the party are being organised and financed in the background by several very active churches, made up of mostly probably senior military and police. Not exactly grassroots. Greece had a rough time with the military junta that ruled it before, and fears a return of the military juntas.

If we look at the spread of GD's electoral results, they're usually getting in the region of 5 or so percent across the board.

That's about what a couple churches on their own in any constituency can pull together, and about the percentage that intensely religious people, as well as military and police, make up of a population.

Their results are evenly spread, so the structure they are using, and type of people that they are attracting, are also evenly spread, as are churches.

That wasn't very difficult, hidden or sinister, was it?

Greeks don't need to adopt a failed Jewish political philosophy like socialism.

Greeks built the Greek civilisation, and with Alexander the Great, took over the Persian and Egyptian empires, which they ran until the days of Rome, when their leaders lost control and their heads, but the bureacracy remained mostly Greek.

These in turn were fused into one focus point by the Romans, who in time divided the empire between the weaker, poorer and barely populated, Rome dominated Western Empire, and the stronger, richer and densely populated Eastern Empire and Constantinople, built upon the former city of Byzantium.

When Rome fell, only the Western Empire fell with it, Romes elites fled to Constantinople, still called Byzantium by the Greeks, and lived happily till the 1400's when it fell to the Moslems.

The elites then fled to Italy, and initiated the Renaissance, which led to the colonial age, and helped build the White world into what is today, for all its faults, literally sending out spacecraft light-years away, whilst most of the rest of the world grovels in the mud.

Do you seriously think, that with a history like that, Greeks need to adopt a failed, Jewish political philosophy like socialism?
Not one of the White empires that ruled the world for several hundred years needed NS.

After WW 2, Germany without NS rebuilt itself from rubble into a superpower that rivals and may soon eclipse the US, as its solvent.

The US without NS is the greatest civilization that has ever existed, and has enabled Whites to walk on the ocean floor, to explore space, to split the atom, to build and create on a scale and extent unparalleled in history.

The NS allied with the Jews, and together with Stalin invaded and divided most of Europe between them. Eastern Europe was given to the Soviets, by the NS.

And you hanker after a Jewish political system like socialism, which has destroyed every country that has ever adopted it, and killed over 200 million in the last century, and may well end up destroying the White race.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; August 2nd, 2012 at 07:42 PM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2012 #185
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Grassroots organisations occur in one or two areas. GD is in every area, across all of Greece.
Have you noticed that Greece is not a very big country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
We know GD are backed by the police....
They have a lot of support among police. That is not the same as being backed by "the police" which are agencies of governments. Police tend to be more racially conscious than others because -- guess what? -- they have to deal with criminals. The same is true in the USA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
We know that the only groups that consistently raise money on a large scale for charity are religious ones, and we know that the groups that give out food on a large scale are religious charities.
Rubbish. Try a search on the term "food drive."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Do you seriously think, that with a history like that, Greeks need to adopt a failed, Jewish political philosophy like socialism?
Socialism is not of Jewish origin. Nor is Communism.

The national-socialistic Spartan state lasted a very long time.

The notion that economies as a matter of principle must not be regulated is modern. Ancient and Mediaeval Europeans didn't think that way.

You have a limited frame of reference and you've read too much libertard propaganda.

Last edited by Hadding; August 3rd, 2012 at 02:59 AM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2012 #186
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Some points:

- GD funded its food giveaway with money it got from being in parliament. To make the point it uses its power to help the people, not feather its own nest. Which leads to the next point.

- second only to opened borders, it is Greek socialism, whereby a huge state bureacracy has enriched itself at the expense of the productive economy, that has created the economic misery. Golden Dawn is against this. Golden Dawn does not think ordinary Greeks should have to pay for the thievings and self-dealings of socialist government bureacrats and their bankster-swindler friends.

- it is not clear at all just how extensive Golden Dawn's support among the police actually is. The left says it is the 'special (riot) police' that are its main backers. Beyond that, it is not clear.

- GD may have support all over, but generally it is in parts of Athens and one place in rural Greece (I forget the name, but a place not experiencing foreign invasion) where support is strongest.
 
Old August 3rd, 2012 #187
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Just to interject this here because it's apposite and queerly funny. Counter-Currents has now published what must be nearly 15k words' worth of Batman reviews for the latest iteration, The Dark Knight Rises.

I had no idea that the way to change culture was through these incredibly, unreadably lengthy reviews that attempt to gloss a tendentious profundity on comic-book material. Seems like a rationalization for some hidden motive, if you ask me.

Reviews that actually work - and I'm not speculating here, I know it for a fact because VNN's Mark Rivers proved it - are short and witty. Those get sucked into google and bring in actual new readers, many of whom don't realize they've been reading a racialist review until they're through. Which is just the mindset you want - genuine openness.
 
Old August 3rd, 2012 #188
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Greggy is on Spingola Speaks now. You can call in and give him a hard time (or whatever your inclination might be). http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/...shoutcast.html

Okay, no calls today. (Why?) Only e-mail questions. [email protected]

Ho ho! Greggy says, "We need to man up, morally speaking."

I used that expression repeatedly in my criticisms of Greggy's "[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust." (I saw April Gaede use it once and thought it was pretty good.)

Greggy's answer to ancestor-guilt seems to be individualism. That should go over well with the patriotard crowd.

I don't see how saying, "We are not responsible for the past," equates to Nietzschean overcoming.

Funny how Greggy says that the conquest of Redskins by Whites doesn't mean that Whites deserve the same, because the parallel drawn between Whites and Redskins in the recent Bugster cartoon (with voiceover by Bob Whitaker) suggests (unintentionally, I assume) exactly that. Conservative rhetoric, or a reverse semiotic as Bowden called it, cuts the legs off of any possibility of a radical change of direction.

Greggy argues that revisionism is not effective because of (1) spluttering (He assumes that revisionist arguments will be "spluttered"), and (2) long digressions. I think I've shown that the arguments are really simple. No spluttering required.

When somebody raises the question of the relation of Jews to slavery, Greggy suddenly becomes concerned with historical accuracy: Whites bought the slaves, he points out.

He shares with the Bugsters the attempt to mobilize the United Nations' very broad definition of genocide as an argument for the defense of White people. He overlooks that this is not what average people think the word genocide means. He also overlooks that a complaint of genocide can only get respect if the interest-group making the complaint has some clout.

Greggy advocates deporting Jews but pretends that this is somehow different from what Hitler was trying to do. He thinks that he can advocate deporting Jews and yet maintain distance from Hitler? This is laughable.

Last edited by Hadding; August 4th, 2012 at 10:57 AM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2012 #189
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Some points:

- GD funded its food giveaway with money it got from being in parliament. To make the point it uses its power to help the people, not feather its own nest. Which leads to the next point.

- second only to opened borders, it is Greek socialism, whereby a huge state bureacracy has enriched itself at the expense of the productive economy, that has created the economic misery. Golden Dawn is against this. Golden Dawn does not think ordinary Greeks should have to pay for the thievings and self-dealings of socialist government bureacrats and their bankster-swindler friends.

- it is not clear at all just how extensive Golden Dawn's support among the police actually is. The left says it is the 'special (riot) police' that are its main backers. Beyond that, it is not clear.

- GD may have support all over, but generally it is in parts of Athens and one place in rural Greece (I forget the name, but a place not experiencing foreign invasion) where support is strongest.
Great and correct points Alex. In fact the NSDAP was first supported by the rural, working and lower middle class ( shop keepers).
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #190
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Greggy argues that revisionism is not effective because of (1) spluttering (He assumes that revisionist arguments will be "spluttered"),
Parallel to the way those who don't like the use of epithets always use the terms screaming nigger. Like you can't simply say it.

Quote:
and (2) long digressions. I think I've shown that the arguments are really simple. No spluttering required.
Happened to be reading Irving. He referred to Zundel trial where jew Martin Gilbert was asked if he had any documentation about gas chambers, and he responded "I am at a loss." Yeah. It's a real losing argument for us.

Quote:
When somebody raises the question of the relation of Jews to slavery, Greggy suddenly becomes concerned with historical accuracy: Whites bought the slaves, he points out.
See, this is the thing. And I want your opinion if you have it. I had always thought Johnson was tough minded. But what I'm seeing lately is a lot of back and forth. And I believe this is traceable to influence, and I think the influence he is falling under comes from Jared Taylor, KM and Mark Weber, or some combo thereof. He just linked to two AmRen pieces yesterday, one of them promoting the white design flaw theory. Which is, in practice, always used by people seeking to exonerate jews from collective guilt for murdering the White West. And the argument you're quoting him making on the radio show is in that same JT way he's taking lately: no matter what jews did, we must blame ourselves. What do you think?

I believe Greg is operating against his deeper beliefs, and that accounts for his hysteria when called on it, as evident in the TOO thread, and in this one. I believe someone or multiple people have persuaded him that the way to go is to dump revisionism as a loser, and work his way back to conservatism of the AmRen/Vdare sort as a way to have a chance at the big fundraising bucks. I never saw Johnson waffling before the last year. It's not pretty. I struggle to explain it. Why throw away a clear winner? Even if Irving comes out and claims 3'm were killed, you still have the fact that 6m is a lie, and gassing is a lie, and Irving is a "discredited" historian according to the people who will probably now jump to cite him.

We need to get bolder, not more defensive. I see no way to account for Johnson's recent writings, save for what I speculate above. What do you think, Hadding and others?

If I could, I would have someone draw up a graphic of the greater political picture. So that you could see visually the connections among and between right/White figures and publications and websites and foundations. Along with money numbers and readership. You get the basic idea.

Quote:
He shares with the Bugsters the attempt to mobilize the United Nations' very broad definition of genocide as an argument for the defense of White people. He overlooks that this is not what average people think the word genocide means. He also overlooks that a complaint of genocide can only get respect if the interest-group making the complaint has some clout.
Well, there IS some kind of lawyerball that you actually admit doesn't lead anywhere. I am surprised and pleased. Yeah, sure, what the kikes are doing to us is genocide as formally defined by the UN. And that matters...how? About as much as it matters when Israel violates another UN resolution. "You can't win at the negotiating table what you haven't won on the battlefield." It's worth pointing out that what jews are doing to us amounts to genocide by the terms the institutions they support use, but that's about it.

Quote:
Greggy advocates deporting Jews but pretends that this is somehow different from what Hitler was trying to do. He thinks that he can advocate deporting Jews and yet maintain distance from Hitler? This is laughable.
Yes, it is. I am not sure how someone that intelligent honestly believes you can simply say, and not be laughed out of the room: I am a new, good Nazi! As distinct from the old, bad ones!

Then again, I suspect it's just fear. I base that on what he said about his horror at only being two degrees of separation from Breivik. (And that was yet another act that he waffled on - initially rejecting it, later coming around.) Something is up with Johnson. If he doesn't want to tell us, he should at least get his own mind clear.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 4th, 2012 at 01:10 PM.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #191
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Everything Greg Johnson knows about the ‘Holocaust’ he learned from Mark Weber
Published on August 3, 2012 by Carolyn in Blog

By Carolyn Yeager

The latest White Nationalist figure to announce his flight from Holocaust Revisionism is the editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, Greg Johnson. In an article titled “Dealing with The Holocaust” published on June 20 at the Occidental Observer, Johnson gave a whole list of reasons why Holocaust Revisionism was not “necessary” to the prospering of what he has dubbed the North American New Right. Just three years ago, Mark Weber used virtually identical reasons to explain why Holocaust Revisionism had become “irrelevant” to the work of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR).

Greg Johnson’s article attracted 757 comments both pro and con, long and short, before being closed to more, and its premises are still being argued. Mark Weber’s 2009 “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?” created a storm of controversy and ill-will that remains to this day. These arguments are therefore not ones that we will pass by quickly as we move on to other concerns, but they strike a deep chord in our collective White consciousness as to who we are, where we’re going and how we will get there.

In this article, I only intend to show the unmistakable similarity between the words used by Johnson and those used by Mark Weber in their respective essays. Of course, Weber’s came first. In connection with this, please see my recent blog post: The Battle for the IHR (posted July 17).

Mark Weber, for his part, has followed in the footsteps of historian David Irving, who determined after his 2005-06 stay in an Austrian prison for “holocaust denial” that there really was a Holocaust after all. Irving realized he would not sell any more books about the Nazi hierarchy unless he ties this hierarchy to the Jewish-approved WWII narrative, with just some small variations to create a sense of surprise for the public. Irving has flip-flopped since his arrest, but has now settled on the assertion that “The Nazis did murder millions of Jews” – and he is being mimicked by Mark Weber, who around that time began taking on the same view.

Weber, like Irving, is also concerned with sales. He wrote in his “Relevant” article that “over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs and requests for interviews about Holocaust history have steadily declined.” [Not an exact quote - cy] At the same time, interest in Jewish-Zionist power and the role of Jews in society increased, he wrote. It didn’t take Weber long to go where he thought the money was – to switch the emphasis of the IHR in that direction. However, it didn’t pan out in the long run because it’s known today that the IHR, with Weber at the helm, is suffering a long-term demise, the cause of which is probably that it doesn’t stand for anything.

When Greg Johnson began Counter-Currents Publishing two years ago after a short stint as editor at The Occidental Quarterly magazine, his views on the ‘Holocaust’ were not known, and certainly not an issue. I doubt that he had any defined views. The Counter-Currents website is a blog that features articles on and by leading intellectuals of the “New Right” along with book and movie reviews. At the same time, Johnson announced that he’s the representative of something he calls the “North American New Right,” making a big deal out of a difference he sees in “New Right” vs “Old Right” (by which he means Nazism, Fascism, and similar movements of the 1920’s-40’s).

In the article under consideration, Johnson writes,

Quote:
The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”
In other words, real crimes committed by the Old Right (premier among them being ‘The Holocaust’) should be accepted by the New Right without trying to minimize or deny them. Johnson, the ‘New Right’ White Nationalist, has learned from Mark Weber, the revisionist, who wrote:

Quote:
Holocaust revisionism is not the same thing as revisionism about the Third Reich or the causes, conduct, and consequences of World War II [which Weber likes to talk about-cy]. Nor does it constitute Holocaust revisionism to compare the Holocaust to other genocides or discuss its overall meaning.
Thus Weber and Johnson can feel free to talk about such things as genocide and WWII, and even Hitler [which are popular topics - cy], without venturing into the much more dangerous territory of Holocaust Revisionism.

Why did Johnson write about the “Holocaust” at all then? The only answer he gives is this:

Quote:
I simply wish to argue that Holocaust revisionism is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. We don’t need it. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although I will argue that it is often a distraction.
This is exactly the reason Mark Weber gave for writing “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?”

Quote:
Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.
But Johnson admits:

Quote:
I have never been all that interested in Holocaust revisionism, simply because my main concern is with the genocide being committed against our own people today, not the real or imagined crimes committed by our people in the past. And the Holocaust strikes me as having little to do with the deep causes of our racial plight and even less to do with the solutions. [Compare this with Weber’s “there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance”]
Johnson wrote in a comment to Hadding Scott:

Quote:
(1) Jews were singled out for especially harsh treatment by the Germans, and (2) countless innocent Jews lost their lives because of that policy. In the end, that is all one need claim to say that the Jews suffered their greatest tragedy at the hands of the Third Reich during World War II.
Again, this comes straight from Mark Weber:

Quote:
Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
And …

Quote:
No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Gone where, he is not interested in looking into. We will discover that the job is “too difficult” for this ex-revisionist.

Greg Johnson wrote in a comment to me on the article:

Quote:
Back in 2001, a very well-informed gentleman sat me down to explain Holocaust revisionism. The first words out of his mouth were, “No serious revisionist denies that a very large number of innocent Jews died as a result of the Third Reich’s policy of deporting Jews to concentration camps.” I said, “Stop right there. That’s all I need to hear.”
This “well-informed gentleman” has to be Mark Weber. Why didn’t Johnson identify Weber as his source of information? You will have to know Greg Johnson to know the answer to that, but it seems to me that Johnson simply doesn’t want people to know his methods of operation – that almost everything he does is copied from someone else; that he is not the “thinker” he has convinced so many people he is.

And indeed, Mark Weber also copies almost everything he does from someone else, and has really no original ideas. As I said, Weber’s whole current world view comes from David Irving, whereas it used to come from the revisionists Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, etc.

Johnson mentions Weber once in his article and links to his “Relevant” essay, when he says:

Quote:
First, as Mark Weber has pointed out, the cultural and political power of the Holocaust is not the foundation of Jewish power, it is an expression of pre-existing Jewish power. Before World War II, Jews already had an enormous amount of power in the United States (see here, p. 9ff): enough power to deliver the United States into two World Wars, for instance. Jewish power was based on over-representation in banking, business, law, politics, academia, and the news and entertainment media.
To be factual, revisionists don’t say the “Holocaust” is the foundation of Jewish power. This is a straw man set up by Weber to give him an argument for ditching revisionism at the IHR. But because the ‘Holo-hoax’ is not the foundation of Jewish power, is that a reason to ignore it and let it grow into even more massive proportions? It has rightly been called one of the, if not the, main pillars of the “blank check” Jews enjoy in the world since 1945. Johnson, basing it on Weber, here identifies over-representation in banking and other industries as what Jewish power rests on. Well then, what is the IHR or Counter Currents doing about Jewish over-representation in banking, business, law, politics, academia, and the news and entertainment media? Weber’s favorite topics are the Israel-Palestine conflict and Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich! When does the IHR talk about the Federal Reserve? Or go after real Jewish power?

The IHR and Mark Weber don’t address these “bases of Jewish Power,” except rarely, because they are too difficult. Weber gets by with just reading and passing around news stories about Israel and Adolf Hitler without any mental stress or hard work. Please take note of how many times Weber speaks, in a 2009 radio interview on VoR, about not doing certain things anymore because they are too difficult. Here are two instances:

Quote:
But it’s difficult to get people to accept because it’s true that National-Socialists were especially harsh in their treatment of Jews. Jews were rounded up, transported across Europe, put in ghettos and concentration camps – many Jews died in these camps. MILLIONS of JEWS lost their lives.
It’s undeniable that Europe’s Jews suffered a catastrophe, no doubt about it. The extent is still questioned.

It’s therefore difficult to persuade most people to accept that the Holocaust is a lie or a hoax.
These are exactly the words Greg Johnson used in the latter part of his comment to me, continued from above:

Quote:
I didn’t need to hear any more [from the “well-informed gentleman" – Mark Weber] because he opened by admitting all the Jews need to establish that a great tragedy befell their people in the Second World War.

[…]

Even if Revisionists refuted every single one of these [fake] stories, the Holocaust still stands because of that great big pile of dead Jews, which is never going to be conjured away — particularly by the morally obtuse quibbling about definitions offered by Hadding Scott.
Mark Weber also said on the 2009 radio program linked to above:

Quote:
Disputing numbers and methods of how people died comes across to most people as quibbling, when for most people the catastrophe was undeniably great enough that it’s hard to dispute that.
Greg Johnson continued in 2012:

Quote:
So I just don’t waste my precious time on Holocaust revisionism, because no accretion of facts, details, etc. is going to alter the facts that the Germans singled Jews out for especially harsh treatment, and a great number of people died for no other reason than the fact they were Jews. That should be Holocaust enough for anyone.
For my own part, I don’t think any quibbling, morally obtuse or otherwise, can alter the fact that Greg Johnson and Mark Weber are working together to sideline Holocaust Revisionism because they don’t want to personally associate with it but they do want to appear as being at the forefront – in the vanguard – of the fight for both historical accuracy and the moral high ground. This makes me want to work harder than ever for the victory of Holocaust Revisionism (meaning by that the widespread acceptance that it is a hoax1 perpetrated by the still-enemies of true nationalism), and I must add that neither Greg Johnson nor Mark Weber are very knowledgeable about the subject.

They are good at thinking about money however. It has come to my attention that Johnson is seeking 501c3 status [non-taxable, non-profit] for his Counter-Currents Publishing-North American New Right, just as the IHR has always had. The major benefit of this is that one can tell prospective donors (specifically large ones) that their donation is tax-deductible.

I will probably write more about this topic in the future, with the goal of helping you, the reader, make informed decisions about where you want your contributed money to go. As we say on the radio, “Thanks for listening.”

1. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz, 1976. Theses and Dissertation Press edition, 2003.

13 Comments

Lew
August 3, 2012 at 6:55 pm

There is an important dispute. I wish there were a way to deal with the arguments without making it personal. I don’t care about the personal stuff myself and have no intention of wading into that part of this disagreement.

In looking to the arguments, my sentiment is that Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power. There is a real-world example that seems to back up this position. In Greece, the NS-like Golden Party didn’t make revisionism part of their message to my knowledge, and Golden Dawn won power.

Maybe I have a false impression, but many revisionists seem to regard revisionism as so important they comes across to me like they want WNists to lead with revisionism. They come across like they want WNists to lead with revisionism in their appeals to persuade people rather than lead with messages people are likely to perceive as more relevant to their lives and concerns. If this isn’t true, revisionists might benefit from fine-tuning their message.

I can see where many people might consider revisionism necessary in the sense that the enemy will always make it necessary whether anyone likes it or not.

The question is what to do about it?

The GD leader Nikos Michaloliakos does not concede the essential truth of the narrative, but neither does he come right out and say “there was no holocaust.” Michaloliakos does not say this. He speaks in terms of 1) exaggerations, and 2) the fact that Jews were not the only group who suffered war crimes (an seeming implicit acknowledgment there were crimes against them), and 3) the Allies also committed war crimes, and 4) there were no gas chambers. While all of that adds up to a major challenge to the official narrative, again, I didn’t see where he used words like “the holocaust did not happen.” So if that’s the standard revisionists are demanding, absolute blanket denial in unequivocal terms, it does not appear even the NS-like, fascist GD meets that standard.



Hawke
August 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm

I got a news flash for Mark Weber. The Israeli/Palestine conflict bores me to tears. This is one the main reasons I stopped listening to his podcasts. I’m sick of so-called “White nationalists” and their crocodile tears for the Palestinians. Crocodile tears for Palestine is a leftist cause (like crocodile tears for Africa)

These so-called “White Nationalists” have calculated that by crying crocodile tears for the Palestinians and screaming about Human rights violations that that will get yuppie urban leftists to support them with lots of cash. I think the leftist yuppies like Barack Obama better than they do Mark Weber so good luck to him.

I’d much rather cry real tears for the Germans and our White brethern who have been disabled by these horrible lies of the Holohoax for almost a century now.


Hawke
August 3, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Lew, it isn’t about whether revisionism should be brought front and center of all other issues. Look, Greg Johnson totally concedes period that the Germans committed Genocide. Johnson says that it is time we concede the “horrible atrocities” committed by Germans and “move on” which is laughable.

Listen to this if you haven’t already. Rodney Martin says it a lot better than I can.

http://www.wvfoundations.org/sitebui...rfiles/714.mp3


Carolyn
August 3, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Lew – Thanks for writing your comment and I agree that this is an important dispute. I take it you are the Lew who posted quite a few comments to Greg Johnson’s original article at The Occidental Observer.

You say you don’t want to get into the personal stuff, but I have to point out that my blog is more about why Greg Johnson wrote about Holocaust Revisionism and where he got his information about it, than about how well it fits into White Nationalism. The “personal” cannot be ignored in the big picture — as character cannot be ignored.

But based on what you’ve brought up in your comment, I have to say you are wrong about this:

many revisionists seem to regard revisionism as so important they comes across to me like they want WNists to lead with revisionism.

The truth is most “real” revisionists don’t care about White Nationalism and don’t care what it does. It is WN’s who care about it. Did you notice any “real” revisionists (those who do research and write books) posting any comments to Johnson’s article? It is White Nationalists who are also revisionists (like myself and quite a few others) who care about how WN handles holocaust revisionism. We want it to be handled honestly, accurately and respectfully.

You are also wrong when you say:

The GD leader Nikos Michaloliakos does not concede the essential truth of the narrative, but neither does he come right out and say “there was no holocaust.” Michaloliakos does not say this.

Michaloliakos says the Holocaust is a hoax. In the video you recommended he was talking to the press and trying to get around their characterizations of him. But he still said it.

However, this Greek is a poor comparison for you to use for Johnson, who not only rejects National-Socialism but even rejects political parties.

Lew, I invite you to come on my radio program (Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager) tomorrow to further discuss this important dispute. You can recommend another person of your persuasion to come on with you if you like. You have to use Skype. Let me know with a reply right here as my email account is a bit mixed up right now. I have your email address and I can then contact you further.


Hadding
August 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Golden Dawn leader Michaloliakos says that nothing extraordinary, nothing deserving special reverence, happened to Jews in World War II. If he said the same thing in English it would be the same as saying that there was no Holocaust.
Lew
August 3, 2012 at 10:35 pm


Carolyn: I have nothing to add beyond the point I made up top.


Hadding
August 3, 2012 at 10:55 pm

The Counter-Currents website is a blog that features articles on and by leading intellectuals of the “New Right”….

This is really giving too much credit for consistency.


Carolyn
August 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm

Lew – In that case, I will add to my reply to your comment that “Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power.”

No one ever said it was. That’s why it’s sort of peculiar that Johnson wrote a long essay about it, simply copying what Mark Weber said in 2009. For myself, I had no problem with what Greg Johnson was writing about WN (excluding what I discovered he had written about homosexuality) until this essay appeared. It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it. I hoped you could shed some light on that.

I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.


Hadding
August 4, 2012 at 3:06 am

Fresh from his shenanigans on TOO four days ago, Lew registered on http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074&page=9 where he stated a more emphatic form of the same strawman argument that he now makes here.

True. It certainly doesn’t appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust. This fact looks like solid evidence to me the holocaust is a peripheral issue when it comes to practical politics. The most successful NS-type party since the real NS party did not, it appears, make holocaust denial central to their platform.

Linder immediately slapped him down.

True. It certainly doesn’t appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust.

More retardation. No one said they took power BECAUSE of the holocaust, the point is the have power and their top guy “denies” the holocaust, which ass-clowns like many say is a deal-breaker.

F*cking sh*t, this place is wall-to-wall envelope-lickers today.

Lew backed away from that position when Linder attacked him, but he still espouses a version of it.


Captainchaos
August 4, 2012 at 4:49 am

“Irving realized he would not sell any more books about the Nazi hierarchy unless he ties this hierarchy to the Jewish-approved WWII narrative,”

I’m not sure this is an exhaustive explanation. Stolfi’s “Hitler” book, not really a “history” book per se but a commentary on what he alleges is history for the sake of the for the reader vicarious psychodrama contained therein, is a profound meditation on the aesthetic appeal the Aryan Superman, who heroically sacrifices his decency in exterminating the Jews for the good of the Volk, may have for the outwardly tame bourgeois reader. It is the same taboo thrill-seeking that Irving implicitly attempts to cater to; to experience standing above Good and Evil, to treat Morality itself as one’s obedient slave, this is a prime reason why people so much enjoy movies such as The Godfather and why James Thurber wrote his satirical short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.



Captainchaos
August 4, 2012 at 5:57 am

“It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it.”

To refrain from explicitly denouncing the Holocaust myth as untrue is an accomodation with the zeitgeist – a zeitgeist which could not be sustained but for the tender-minded quality of most individuals. For most people, to tear away from them a set-piece of their moral cosmology is, yes, “a definite provocation”. And even were the Holo-myth decisively refuted in the minds of all and sundry, the essential “moral” of the story would remain forever pristine in the hearts of most: it can never by anything but grotesque to destroy a man for his ethnicity without regard for his individual culpability in committing immoral acts. For most Aryans (I mean racially pure Northern Europeans), death, even racial death, must precede dishonor.

Also, avoiding directly challenging the veracity of the traditional Holocaust narrative, as one tries to edge racialism ever closer to the mainstream (those that cling to the mainstream are a tender-minded sort, recall), is not ipso facto evidence that proponents of this approach would see truth’s eternal flame slapped from the hands of all who wish to carry it. Truth telling not packaged for internalization by its intended hearers is, after all, only an act of self-righteous self-indulgence on the part of truth tellers. There are those, indeed many, who are simply not prepared to hear the whole truth and nothing but. However, when they are ready, it is important that skilled proponents of the unvarnished truth come to their aid.

Analysis in the service enlightenment, it seems, can only occur at multiple levels of sophistication.


katana
August 4, 2012 at 9:23 am


Carolyn
August 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm

I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.

——————-

The good accomplished is the self exposure of his very unhelpful beliefs.
His de-facto acceptance of the ‘Holocaust’ combined with his self proclaimed ignorance on the topic tells me that his agenda is not good.

His long windiness consists of self contradictory opinions all over the map. A lot of slippery rhetoric indeed.

Although WN and HRevisionism are in one sense separate issues they are in reality intimately connected via jewish propaganda that brainwashes Whites to associate the two. The conventional story is that to be a WN is to condone and support genocide because Nazis were WNs and they in turn were responsible for the ‘Holocaust’.

So, Johnson’s suggestion to sideline HRevisonism is a suggestion to sideline WN.



Hadding
August 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm

It’s hard enough to get people to take a firm stand for the truth without some person like Greg Johnson coming along and saying that it really shouldn’t be done anyway. In effect it’s a kind of demoralization propaganda.
Leave a Reply

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/08/0...om-mark-weber/

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 4th, 2012 at 01:15 PM.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #192
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Chaos has gone completely mannerist.

The best way to learn to swim is to get thrown into the water.

The right way to deal with 'the' 'holocaust' is to laugh at it. And when you're done guffawing, point out that the 6m is a big lie, the gas chambers are a big lie, and the jew(s) who invented and spread these big lies murdered tens of millions of people just like you listening to me, white man.

As for the holocaust/Golden Dawn thing, Jesus P. Christ.

Here's the deal.

You run for office as a nationalist, you get called a nazi. You criticize jews, you get accused of being a holocaust denier. How do you respond? Do you cave in, the way Johnson advises? Do you try to avoid the subject, the way MacDonald advises? Or do you fight back by rejecting the smuggled claims inside that designer smear, the way Michaloliakos does?

The answer is clear: you do what the winner, Michaloliakos, does. The conservatives masquerading as nationalists hold as axiom that defending the Nazis or denying 'the' 'holocaust' are deal breakers. Golden Dawn's experience proves that's not true.

Of course no one makes this the centerpiece of their campaign, that's so fucking dumb it literally would never occur to me someone would put it out there. Greeks are starving and gettnig beaten up by invaders, what do they care what happened in WWII? The point is that if you lead them politically as a proud, racialist, jew-criticizing nationalist, you will get called a nazi and a holocaust denier? HOW DO YOU RESPOND? Do you cut and run the way 501c3 Johnson and MacDonald and Brimelow and Taylor tell you? Or do you stand and fight, and take the accusations and big lies and stuff them up the judenpresse's ass?

Again, who cares what I think, look at what actually works: the Michaloliakos way. He denied the holocaust, his party won seats.

Boom, boom, boom, debate over.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 5th, 2012 at 11:20 PM.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #193
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

I think we have the answer I was looking for.

Johnson is trimming in order to get 501c3 accreditation, so he can start tapping the big money Vdare is.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #194
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
See, this is the thing. And I want your opinion if you have it. I had always thought Johnson was tough minded. But what I'm seeing lately, is a lot of back and forth. And I believe this is traceable to influence, and I think the influence he is falling under comes from Jared Taylor. He just linked to two AmRen pieces yesterday, and the argument you're quoting him making on the radio show is exactly the way JT would play. What do you think? I believe Greg is operating against his deeper beliefs, and that accounts for his hysteria when called on it, as evident in the TOO thread, and in this one. I believe someone or multiple people have persuaded him that the way to go is to dump reivisionism as a loser, and work his way back to conservatism of the AmRen/Vdare sort as a way to have a chance at the big fundraising bucks. I never saw Johnson waffling before the last year. It's not pretty. I struggle to explain it. Why throw away a clear winner? Even if Irving comes out and claims 3'm were killed, you still have the fact that 6m is a lie, and gassing is a lie, and Irving is a "discredited" historian according to the people who will probably now jump to cite him.
I don't think Taylor wants to take any public position on the Jewish Question. I've only heard him say anything about it when pressed. In those instances he only said as much as he had to say to get off the subject. His stated position (in response to a caller's question on The Political Cesspool) is that others can deal with the Jewish Question if they want but it's not his focus.

Therefore it makes no sense to me to suppose that Taylor would be trying to micromanage somebody else's approach to the Jewish Question, much less to historical revisionism. In any case he has no Svengali-like control over Greggy.

It doesn't look surprising to me that Greggy is doing this. He seems to try to be all things to all people. Anybody that republishes essays by William Pierce and promotes Harold Covington, and professes to be "New Right," and delivers Christian sermons and is ... whatever else he may be ... has no consistency whatsoever, so far as publicly espoused positions are concerned. He is much more than two-faced. He is liable to say anything, and you can't put any stock in it.

Greggy's desire to distance himself from revisionism just means that for some reason this has momentarily appeared as a convenient position for him to adopt.

Maybe he is under the influence of "New Right" anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye. That seems to me a much more likely source than Jared Taylor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
We need to get bolder, not more defensive. I see no way to account for Johnson's recent writings, save for what I speculate above. What do you think, Hadding and others?
In the aftermath of the giant lies about Iraq etc. there is more receptivity than ever to suggestions that other claims about history may not be true, and there is more willingness to criticize Jewish power than ever before in our lifetimes. This is no time to back off.

Last edited by Hadding; August 4th, 2012 at 02:34 PM.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #195
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default suggestion

Perhaps Dr. Johnson should call his site The Varnished Truth.

While reading that long thread- the word Taylor kept popping into my mind.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #196
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I don't think Taylor wants to take any public position on the Jewish Question. I've only heard him say anything about it when pressed. In those instances he only said as much as he had to say to get off the subject. His stated position (in response to a caller's question on The Political Cesspool) is that others can deal with the Jewish Question if they want but it's not his focus.
Yeah, that's what he says, but that's mere rhetoric. It's a political position. There's no such thing as claiming you discuss race but avoid jews. It's not even literally true: Taylor has written at least one lengthy essay on his position on jews - granted, he only did it due to reader pressure. But he very clearly stated therein, as he said on Donahue, jews are white, he has no problem with them, they will receive special exemption from criticism wherever he and his editors hold sway. Well, he didn't say that last one, but that is in fact his practice, on site and at his shows. No, Taylor has a very well defined position on jews staked out. And don't forget the blowup by jew Hart, who cursed Duke and ran out of a conference. Taylor is very big on propriety, he would have us believe, but he never said boo to the jew about his rude cursing of Duke. What can you say? When jews are put ahead of the WN who got the farthest in electoral politics since the great war, that pretty much speaks for itself.

Quote:
Therefore it makes no sense to me to suppose that Taylor would be trying to micromanage somebody else's approach to the Jewish Question, much less to historical revisionism. In any case he has no Svengali-like control over Greggy.
Not micromanaging, influencing. Just as Yeager points out you might as well be reading Weber when you're reading Johnson on revisionism, you might as well be reading Taylor when it comes to the ultimate why on the racial question. Johnson is making almost word for word the same arguments the Taylorites do: we are doing this to ourselves, we are committing suicide, we should blame ourselves, maybe you hate jews more than you love whites; whites are uniquely morally flawed, whites suffer from masochistic altruism -- all these jew-exculpating arguments are associated with AmRen and Jared Taylor, first and last. Johnson never used to voice them. Now they're his first recourse. It is reasonable to think he is taking cues from Taylor.

Quote:
It doesn't look surprising to me that Greggy is doing this. He seems to try to be all things to all people. Anybody that republishes essays by William Pierce and promotes Harold Covington,
I don't see a contradiction there. The problem I have is he has no problem with associating with and promoting WN of bad character. Just as with the 'holocaust,' he tries to just "step over it," the it being Tubby's moral problems.

Quote:
and professes to be "New Right,"
This is just something he made up. It has no meaning beyond 'the writers clustered around Counter-Currents,' except in his mind.

Quote:
and delivers Christian sermons and
That's kind of unfair. That may well be something he rejects now, part of the past.

Quote:
is ... whatever else he may be ... has no consistency whatsoever, so far as publicly espoused positions are concerned. He is much more than two-faced. He is liable to say anything, and you can't put any stock in it.
He wasn't a waffler until recently, that I ever noticed. That's why I've been trying to figure out his motive, because I don't believe he's had a change of mind.

Quote:
Greggy's desire to distance himself from revisionism just means that for some reason this has momentarily appeared as a convenient position for him to adopt.
Who knows. I suspect 501c3 trimming, now that I'm aware he's after the grail of tax-deductibility. This could account for his strange new emphasis on keepin' it safe and legal (and many degrees from Breivik) and universal nationalism.

Quote:
Maybe he is under the influence of "New Right" anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye. That seems to me a much more likely source than Jared Taylor.
Well, I think Yaeger showed that Weber is the source. I don't know about Faye. That could contribute too, I suppose.

Quote:
In the aftermath of the giant lies about Iraq etc. there is more receptivity than ever to suggestions that other claims about history may not be true, and there is more willingness to criticize Jewish power than ever before in our lifetimes. This is no time to back off.
I agree with that 100%.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #197
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
While reading that long thread- the word Taylor kept popping into my mind.
Yep. All Johnson's newfound arguments derive from the "we're doing it to ourselves" theology of white suicide. And that school comes from Jared Barnum Taylor.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #198
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
There's no such thing as claiming you discuss race but avoid jews.
Conservatives discuss race while avoiding the Jewish aspect all the time. That's Taylor's audience and source of support, conservatives. He differs from most conservatives mainly in that he states the issues explicitly while Sean Hannity and others go on about "rap culture" etc. I think that there is some good in this.

The purpose of Taylor's statements about Jews is completely different from Greg Johnson's. Taylor would rather say nothing about Jews. Johnson wants to discuss Jews for the purpose of changing how we approach the matter. He tells us to abandon revisionism. In that, Johnson resembles "New Right" anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye.
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #199
Eric-Hunt
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13
Default

I agree that this is likely a partial play to "be allowed" non-profit status.

Along with some other revisionists, I was interested in forming a non-profit, tax deductible group. A revisionist lawyer said that I wouldn't be able to be on the board and effectively would have to hide behind the scenes because there is a review board, etc., that can deny a group non-profit status.

I also think Greg should reveal this "well-informed gentleman", because as Carolyn points out, it seems like Weber.
"Back in 2001, a very well-informed gentleman sat me down to explain Holocaust revisionism."
Why didn't he want to quote Weber twice in the same article? Why does Greg want to hide this man's identity, if it IS Weber, who is mentioned elsewhere in the article?

Would it be too obvious he's parroting the traitor's line of BS? Was he aware that Weber is reviled as a traitor in this movement, or does he feel guilty for mentioning Weber as the source of his line of reasoning twice?

Greg still didn't answer my four easy questions. What kind of "Aryan" is he? If he wants to answer yes, fine! But to completely ignore them? This is winning a debate?

Johnson would lose a debate with both the reality asserters AND the hoax promoters.

1) Do you believe cyanide insecticide (Zyklon B) gas chambers killed about a million Jews?

2) Do you believe the exhaust from captured Soviet tank engines was used to gas about 2 million Jews?

3) Do you believe "gas vans" were used to kill a few hundred thousand Jews?

4) Do you believe, as Father Dubois and his Rothschild funders promote, that 2 million Jews were killed in a "Holocaust by Bullets" on the Eastern Front?
 
Old August 4th, 2012 #200
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Conservatives discuss race while avoiding the Jewish aspect all the time. That's Taylor's audience and source of support, conservatives. He differs from most conservatives mainly in that he states the issues explicitly while Sean Hannity and others go on about "rap culture" etc. I think that there is some good in this.
I think there's no good in it. It's not honest. Yeah, you can do it. But you can't do it honestly. The problems the conservatives complain about are all caused by jews, since they opened white communities to the presence of these monkeys. How do you not say that?

Quote:
The purpose of Taylor's statements about Jews is completely different from Greg Johnson's. Taylor would rather say nothing about Jews.
Taylor would rather blame whites. This is how he defends jews, which is his real, if undeclared, mission.

Quote:
Johnson wants to discuss Jews for the purpose of changing how we approach the matter. He tells us to abandon revisionism. In that, Johnson resembles "New Right" anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye.
Johnson has traditionally been fine with blaming jews for the destruction of the white west. What's notable now is that he has shifted his position from blaming jews to blaming whites. Which is the position most associated with his buddy and known associate Jared Taylor. Johnson's position on revisionism obviously comes from Weber, unless you can cite something Faye said that Johnson is copying as closely.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 5th, 2012 at 11:33 PM.
 
Reply

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

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.
Page generated in 2.40236 seconds.