#1 Holohoax Thread

[Henry.]

Hadding Scott might enjoy this one.

Greg (bow down to me) Johnson posted the following on CC to explain how his drive for Summer funding turned into an Autumn wet fart

Several readers have asked what happened to our summer fundraising drive. The short answer is that we hit a bump in the road. But we have stepped over it and are moving forward again.

http://www.counter-currents.com/

That's not just ''paraphrasing'' the late Bowden: it's milking his corpse till the tits squeak

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

That is exactly the opposite of what I said. I want our people to be strong enough, morally and psychologically, that they are immune to such guilt ploys, whether they are true or not.

Well what better way could there be to teach them than to take an attack on their people (the holocaust) they read about daily, and point out that it's a bunch of lies promoted by people who are blood relatives of the real atrocity-mongers?

Indeed, I argued that many revisionists actually accept the basic principle of the enemy, to wit that "If white pride and nationalism lead to these atrocities, then we have no right to be proud, self-assertive, nationalistic whites." That moral premise is simply false. But revisionists don't reject it head-on. They simply try to dispute the facts, as if our race really would have no right to exist if our people had committed various historical atrocities.

But revisionist =/= white nationalist. Revisionism is simply fact-finding in relation to historical episodes. There's no politics of any kind necessarily attached to it.

As for those who are WN, why would you even bother with some absurd hypothetical -- "even if we did to this or that massacre..." -- when we didn't? That makes no sense. The enemy has invested hugely in his big lie campaign called 'the' 'holocaust.' If we can destroy it, his money goes to waste, and every other claim he makes becomes suspect. You're not seeing what a huge payoff there is for exploding this universal propaganda campaign. Either that, or you do understand it, but choose to avoid it for personal reasons, which I'm sure is the case for MacDonald. Exactly the same historical pattern of lying (the repeated use of the fetish number 6,000,000) can be found through jewish history as in the other examples of jewish interested misrepresentation MacDonald writes about. He certainly knows that. He doesn't want to gain anymore notoriety than he already has, is my guess. He's looking at the personal downside rather than the political upside.

As for your motive, I think it's that 501c3 thing. You find it in CC's interests to back off 'the' 'holocaust.' There really isn't any other reason to write that essay.

Try that kind of reasoning on any other race. Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests?

They would if they were being told to by authority 24 hours a day.

Why do you think jews buy up media? And bribe pols? And train teachers? Does all that suddenly have no effect? It's the dog that didn't bark in your essay. You don't even MENTION it. Which tells the alert reader you're deliberately avoiding it.

Whites have become a morally sick, rotten race because of our acceptance of Christian morality and its secular offshoots,

Gee, Gregorino, you'd be a little more convincing on the front if we hadn't heard the MP3 of your dulcet cooing about Our Sweet Lord to the Swedenborgian throng.

Christ-insanity can go with anything: being a complete pussy: being a complete mindless killer. It is INHERENTLY anti-White, but not for the reason you say.

although it is an open question if whites have some deeper, biological propensity to accept such ideas.

Have you ever met any White people? They have a greater range and depth than jews or blacks. That's all it is. I don't think getting rid of the capacity for shame is a good idea, myself. I don't want to live around a bunch of non-jew Sandra Bernhards. And if it's that bad, that we can only win by becoming jews, then I guess jews are pretty much taking care of that by their present policy of encouraging miscegenation. But I think we can win by using our intelligence to see what's going on. We don't need to change our nature. We can't - not in short enough order to make a difference.

You're just backing away from a fight, which is sad but your business, but when you urge like cowardice on others, you will be upbraided. You should be chasing the support and followership of the Eric Hunts, not the doddering oldsters writing you big checks. That way lies conservatism, and conservatism is for losers.

Did you get into this to raise funds or effect the ultimate change?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

I didn't say that.

What I did say is that I got criticism from people who thought I was too pro-revisionist and too anti-revisionist.

Well that might be, but I didn't notice ANY criticism on the TOO thread, let alone here, that you were too PRO-revisionist. I think you're making that up. Assuming you're telling the truth about losing the donor, it's clear what his position is.

[Alex Linder]

As Linder pointed out, whites feel little to no guilt about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi or Japanese civilians. In fact, they think they "had it coming."

You notice Johnson doesn't even respond to this point. Even though it directly controverts his thesis. This is becoming a pattern with him. Assert, insult, claim you're moving on.

I notice also this topic came up at OD, and most agree with me that the "white guilt" thesis is a crock, although Brad Griffin does not.

Johnson has repeatedly argued as our enemies would, comparing Hadding to Page, repeating this ridiculous "Holocaust enough" garbage.

Why is Greggy privileging the (99% imaginary) suffering of the jew? How can a white nationalist do that? He can't. That's how conservatives 'argue': by giving in.

This really goes to the top, to MacDonald. Johnson just writes what MacDonald wants. As we've seen demonstrated, MacDonald won't print anything revisionist. MacDonald hangs with Taylor and Weber. MacDonald is ultimately to blame.

We should have no sympathy for childless Californians who refuse to defend white children from Holohoax brainwashing, one of the fundamental weapons Jews use to destroy our self-preservation instinct.

I agree with those points. I think KM knows revisionism is basically right, and he respects the horrors the fact-finders have endured for their pains, but he doesn't want any more notoriety for himself, so he's avoiding the matter. And Jeeves Johnson is just following along behind him.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Henry.

That's true Greg. But as an educator, so should Kevin MacDonald be raising hell about it. Using his bona fides as a competent psychologist to emphasise the harm that's being inflicted on the children that will soon become the State controlled adults to be.

Excellent point. I'm pretty sure MacDonald began his academic career focusing on childhood development. He is perfectly positioned two ways to document the genocidal intent behind 'the' 'holocaust' campaign.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

Our time is limited, so we have to choose our battles carefully. It would not be the best use of my time and talents.

But writing 5,000-word Batman reviews would.

I suspect that MacDonald would say something similar.

Well, you just keep fighting over there on the comic-book sector. The rest of us'll be over here working on 'the' 'holocaust.'

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

The way Greg Johnson uses that expression is not at all what Bowden meant by it. It's an injustice to Bowden to attribute Johnson's meaning to him.

I notice he won't address this point. It's like he runs away from 'the' 'holocaust,' and it leads him to run away from everything else.

"Stepping over" seems the only trick left in his bag.

[Greg Johnson]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

You notice Johnson doesn't even respond to this point. Even though it directly controverts his thesis. This is becoming a pattern with him. Assert, insult, claim you're moving on.

Ironic that you protest assertion and insult -- in an insulting assertion.

1. I have dealt with your argument on this very thread. I don't see much point in arguing with you further. You've convinced me that you are indifferent to truth and reason. So what's the point?

2. I don't deal with Hadding RE Bowden because he is arguing in bad faith: it is just a defamatory diversion tactic, to keep people from confronting my actual arguments. If you stoop to answer one such charge, he'll just shit out another.

I have said enough, and you have said enough, for intelligent and perceptive people to decide in my favor. The rest aren't worth fighting over. So yes, I am moving on.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

Ironic that you protest assertion and insult -- in an insulting assertion.

1. I have dealt with your argument on this very thread. I don't see much point in arguing with you further. You've convinced me that you are indifferent to truth and reason. So what's the point?

Which one of us is living a lie? Which one of us hides his nature? Which one of us hides the motives behind his words?

You - on all three counts.

Which one of us all but said in so many words "the truth about 'the' 'holocaust' doesn't matter"? And now is saying that someone else is "indifferent to truth and reason." You got some nerve, Johnson.

Look, li'l buddy. Let me splain it to you. You wrote a dumb essay filled with bad advice. You got your ass kicked by people who know what they're talking about and where they're going.

Quoth Sean Penn: "Now get out of here."

2. I don't deal with Hadding RE Bowden because he is arguing in bad faith: it is just a defamatory diversion tactic, to keep people from confronting my actual arguments. If you stoop to answer one such charge, he'll just shit out another.

It's not bad faith if his charge is accurate. It is you who has made a big deal of "stepping over." Are you in fact using the term to mean the opposite of what Bowden did? It would be awfully easy of you to explain why your use is appropriate, if it is. I don't know or care, as I didn't follow Bowden, I'm speaking as an observer of your exchanges.

I have said enough, and you have said enough, for intelligent and perceptive people to decide in my favor. The rest aren't worth fighting over. So yes, I am moving on.

Yeah, I'm pretty much done myself, and I do agree enough has been said to judge. But I will keep making points as long as there are points to be made. (Gee, that was awfully Greggish of me: saying I'm done, and in same sentence, I'm not done.)

You know, your responses to things are purely emotional and scattershot. You say we just ignore 'the' 'holocaust' because even if it were true, we would still be justified in existing as whites and making the same demands. But then the most trivial unrelated thing happens -- Page shooting the Sikhs -- and lo and behold, here's the "just move on" guy wringing his hands for thousands of words, dissociating himself from the act while apologizing for it, and hoping that he doesn't have to deliver this sort of lecture again.

So YOU feel YOU are personally compelled to explain why this unconnected guy did what he did, but somehow you and everybody else are NOT compelled to address daily charges that we are responsible for 'the' 'Holocaust' hence a uniquely guilty race that can never be trusted with sovereignty again.

We can just "step over" the big H, but we can't step over the microscopic Page.

I remember when you used to write sentences that didn't make sane men shake their head after every period.

[Brent McKaskell]

Deleted


...

[America First]

compelled to address daily charges that we are responsible for 'the' 'Holocaust' hence a uniquely guilty race that can never be trusted with sovereignty again.


Unquote

Its not funny at all, but any one stating or promoting that we best forget mentioning the jooo big lie that has been used by their media and tax exempt groups to beat Whites over the head with it every day, is wrong.

Plus the millions of White working class who have suffered Greatly, by not having a peaceful public commons of their own, and no sanctuary in abodes or schools for their White children.

The phucking bastards over forty unless they are Wealthy pushing and defending drop kicking the White race are IMO the last SOB generation to attend public schools with out a messytizo or African Congoid sitting with them.

By 1990 almost every district in the regime was getting savage's.

Today, every County in the Regime has refugees and fruit loops actively bringing them to the last remaining White hide outs.

Since 2001, the arrogance of jooos towards Whites who dare to challenge their war mongering in person is amazing to watch, never mind the media ones.

As Kevin Mac Donald stated once if I remember correctly and exactly "These people could mean us great harm."

Preface Culture of Critique, read it again.

They use their Holy Cost like a weapon.

They have Holy get YT museums in every state now I think.


Look in to any puss filled sore, and open it, and their is your screeching pals.

Who said that ? Ha.

What they did in Russia is their M.O.

FDR murdered his opposition, and gave US a war fighting for STALIN and the USSR lunatic hell hole that murdered tens of millions of White Russian's.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

2. I don't deal with Hadding RE Bowden because he is arguing in bad faith: it is just a defamatory diversion tactic, to keep people from confronting my actual arguments. If you stoop to answer one such charge, he'll just shit out another.

I think you don't answer because you have no answer.

My first post in response to Greg Johnson's "[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust" made the point that if we define the term Holocaust according to what most people think the word means, we can say that the number of Holocaust victims was zero, because there is no evidence that anybody died in gas-chambers. Several people agreed with this statement.

Greg Johnson's response was to reject the whole idea of proceeding logically with fixed definitions, calling it "morally obtuse quibbling."

In response to that I said: "The principle that a clear discussion has to begin with a clear definition of what is being discussed derives from Socrates and Plato. Staying in the realm of mushy, malleable terms, one can never really resolve anything."

At that point Greg Johnson started in with the insults, first indirectly: "Normal people think that reducing the Holocaust death total to zero merely by stipulating a particular definition of the Holocaust is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions."

Sometime later Johnson accused me of not dealing with his arguments, which is hard for me to comprehend. I think that if I point out that he has left a key term ambiguous, that is addressing his arguments. It may not appear very respectful, it may not be addressing the essay on its own (ungraspable) terms, but I believe it shows that a large part of what he wrote amounts to confused babbling (as the Jewess Marcy Fleming put it). When the meaning of a key term in the discussion is unclear, it can hardly be otherwise.

I said this about Johnson's use of Bowden's name:

The problem with Greg Johnson is that he is a bit dishonest. The way he uses the name and the words ["stepping over"] of Johnathan Bowden — who said, “There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.” — to excuse running away from “fascism” and whatever thorny issues may be attached, is dishonest. Where Bowden advocated courage and overcoming, Johnson makes excuses and runs away, while pretending that it’s what Bowden advocates.

That looks like a spot-on assessment to me. Cowardice masquerading as courage. Superficial rhetoric masquerading as serious thought.

[Alex Linder]

Sometime later Johnson accused me of not dealing with his arguments, which is hard for me to comprehend.

It's not hard at all to comprehend. Johnson agrees with you. He just can't say it. Remember Sobran made precisely this point: the strongest hostility you get on these racial/jewish issues is from people who AGREE with you BUT CAN'T SAY IT.

Johnson has decided upon a future for Counter-Currents that requires a shift in direction, which is a euphemism for going with the flow on 'the' 'holocaust.' That's the reason he wrote that essay. That's also the reason he leaped immediately to ad hominems in his responses on the TOO thread. He doesn't feel that good about what he's doing, and the personal attacks both reflect that and, he hopes, will shore up his internal doubts about what he's doing. And I'm sure there was a measure of fear as he realized that, despite his best efforts to keep the fact finders in his orbit, they weren't buying his bullshit, as reflected in the response at TOO, which was at least 60-40 against him. Has Greg Johnson ever written anything that didn't meet with at least 80% approval among its intended audience? Not that I've seen. So this is new territory for him.

that a large part of what he wrote amounts to confused babbling (as the Jewess Marcy Fleming put it). When the meaning of a key term in the discussion is unclear, it can hardly be otherwise.

Johnson is an extraodinarily articulate writer; if he is unclear, it can only be for one reason: he feels he can't say what he means.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Johnson is an extraodinarily articulate writer; if he is unclear, it can only be for one reason: he feels he can't say what he means.

I've found Greg Johnson to be something of a bullshit artist in the past. He wrote that stupid essay about Hitler where he pretended to be knowledgeable about Hitler but then included a quote from the fraudulent Hitler-Bormann Documents (the only ostensible Hitler quote in the essay). After I exposed his gauche error he removed the passage but then put it back, pretending that the source could be valid after all. Johnson also made up a stupid self-justifying story about how Dr. Pierce supposedly expressed faith in the Hitler-Bormann Documents when he visited him in 2001, apparently not suspecting that I would know firsthand, having worked there in the 1990s, that NVB did not sell it because it was known to be fraudulent. I don't pay much attention to Johnson but in the instances when he has provoked my attention he has created the impression of being habitually dishonest.

[Hunter Morrow]

I don't like the term "revisionist." It assumes there was something in history to be revised. For instance, somebody can say that the Pearl Harbor attack was known in advance by codebreakers and higher ups but allowed to happen to get an American public extremely hostile towards American involvement in World War II to support war. Why? For many reasons, but the most important one is this: There was something called Pearl Harbor and we can revise our views on what that event was and why it happened. There is no such thing with the Holocaust. It is all kike bullshit and retroactive justification for American involvement in World War II and World War II as a whole, including the aftermath of throwing a huge portion of Europe away to Bolshevik kike mass murderers.

I don't like denier, either. One, blatantly perjorative and negative and two it again assumes that there is something to deny, the Holy Hoax.

I've been thinking about a suitable replacement for that term for people who say there was no Final Solution order, no gas chambers (mobile or otherwise, zyklon b or diesel exhaust) and that the whole thing is bullshit. I came up with "Rejectionist." As in, somebody who categorically rejects every aspect of Shoah business as a kike fraud.

[Organon]

Greg, you can't deal with a serious criticism of your arguments head on.

There was no Holocaust, and to ask others to accept that there was simply because some Jews suffered and died and present Jews can whine and make a lot of noise is undiluted cowardice.

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

....I'm pretty sure MacDonald began his academic career focusing on childhood development. He is perfectly positioned two ways to document the genocidal intent behind 'the' 'holocaust' campaign.

It's extraordinary how MacDonald described, in meticulous detail, the process of Jewish evolutionary strategy, then simply stopped his observations at the very stage in that process when the Darwinian switch was thrown with the rolling out of the biggest lie of all.

MacDonald knows what they've done cos he wrote the fuckin' book on it.

He's become the reluctant scientist who can't face what he finds crawling about in his Petri dish when he goes into the lab each morning.

[Alex Linder]

U.S., EU sanctions have endangered lives of Iranian patients: Iranian hemophilia society

11 August 2012 17:04

TEHRAN - The Iranian hemophilia society sent a letter to the president of the World Federation of Hemophilia and the president of the World Health Organization on July 28, warning about the negative effect of sanctions on the health of hemophiliacs in Iran.

“As you are aware, hemophiliacs and other patients suffering from serious blood coagulation disorders need to regularly take medicines and receive blood products imported from the United States and European countries. In the event of any disruption in the supply and purchase of the necessary and vital medicines,” many patients may become paralyzed or may die, part of the letter said.

It added, “Unfortunately, extensive sanctions against the Iranian government and nation by the European Union and the United States- despite the fact that in official documents of these countries, the sanctions do not include a ban on (the supply of) medicines- have practically made it difficult for patients to purchase and access to medicines... The (sanctions) have also seriously endangered the lives of tens of thousands of patients, particularly children, suffering from special diseases.”

The Iranian hemophilia society also called on the World Federation of Hemophilia and the World Health Organization to condemn the disruption in the supply of medicines to patients in Iran and take the measures necessary to prevent a “humanitarian crisis” from occurring in Iran.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/...philia-society

Where's the White American's guilt or shame over this? Nowhere to be found. Notice that Greg Johnson hasn't even responded to my argument, which destroys the lies he and the liar he copies, Jared Taylor, have been pitching to suckers. Even as he goes on about how everybody but him is allergic to reason and truth. Only one thing reconciles the syncopated 'guilt' whites display: the official attitude. Americans feel guilty when the government tells them to, and they don't when it doesn't. Whether they actually have reason to feel guilty has not the slightest relation, all you need to know is the official attitude toward the matter in question to know how the White American will react.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Henry.

It's extraordinary how MacDonald described, in meticulous detail, the process of Jewish evolutionary strategy, then simply stopped his observations at the very stage in that process when the Darwinian switch was thrown with the rolling out of the biggest lie of all.

MacDonald knows what they've done cos he wrote the fuckin' book on it.

He's become the reluctant scientist who can't face what he finds crawling about in his Petri dish when he goes into the lab each morning.

Yes, it's a little hard to figure how he cut things in his book. He ignored the jew role in media and finance, if I recall correctly. Then he added a long preface on jews in media to his paperback edition.

It seems he's trying to do something that is between history and real science, and it's not really that easy to do, or to prove. I mean his thesis. For political purposes, it doesn't really matter whether he's right about group evolutionary strategy. Jews behave like a team, so that's how they must be taken by any group who wants to keep from being dominated by them.

I just think MacDonald doesn't want the additional notoriety that would come with extending his analysis to 'the' 'holocaust.' It's too bad, because his credentials, which in most political matters don't matter, do matter in something like the 'holocaust.' And since the 'holocaust' is one of the biggest weapons jews wield against us, this is an area with a very great bang for the buck. He has "no sympathy" with this line of argument however. Which suggests and emotional resistance rather than an intellectual opposition to 'holocaust' political work.

I still say we could build a party around educational curriculum specifically designed to counter the 'holocaust' myth. Have professional devise something -- imagine a panel of Ph.D. advisers -- that could be put in the hands of white families tired of having their children indoctrinated every single year they attend public school, and tired of having to pay for this anti-White indoctrination out of their own pocket. I think this project alone could be a good basis for a political party.

I am just disgusted by the unwillingness to fight. I can kind of understand it in MacDonald, he's an older guy who has made his main contribution, but in Johnson, it is intolerable. Johnson's is the soul worth fighting over, but at this point it appears the battle is lost.

We need more principled young radicals, not more unprincipled money-driven functional conservatives mouthing WN platitudes.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Hunter Morrow

I don't like the term "revisionist." It assumes there was something in history to be revised.

The term 'Revisionist' is correct, because of the nature of history in that in history we deal in an interpretation of the evidence. The 'holocaust' is essentially a group of different theories that are based on a (very selective) interpretation of the documentary evidence of Axis anti-jewish policy during World War II and the fate of the jews of Europe.

That these group of theories that we call the 'holocaust' are based on very selective evidence and are not intellectually rigorous; in spite of billions of dollars being thrown into supporting them, is no impediment to the term 'Revisionist' as it has; and still is, frequently used in the context of those who disagree with a long prevalent interpretation and seek to re-write it on the basis of the evidence. A good example is the 'Mother Goddess' theory that was demolished in 1967 by an Egyptologist (after circa 150 years of intellectual dominance): whose theory was called 'Revisionist' and was correctly described by Ronald Hutton in 1986 as one.

I can see what you are getting at though: as it simply doesn't have the rhetorical punch of 'denier'. Personally I think that you need to concentrate less on naming yourself than demonizing your opponents: hence why 'holocaust liar' is an apt way of describing proponents of holocaust orthodoxy.

You call us deniers: we call you liars.

Rhetoric has got to be aggressive not passive. Add to that demonizing the orthodox holocaustians is remarkably easy considering all the obvious Israel Firsters they got very loudly dancing the Hora on their bandwagon. Add to that they use the 'holocaust' to justify just about anything Israel does and you've got a potentially explosive combination for some aggressive fact-based rhetoric.