Everything Greg Johnson knows about Holocaust Revisionism he learned from Mark Weber
By Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2012 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 (pictured at right) 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,
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 in the past (premier among them being ‘The Holocaust’) should be accepted by us now without trying to minimize or deny them. Johnson, the ‘New Right’ White Nationalist, has learned from Mark Weber, the revisionist, who wrote:
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]. 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], 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:
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?”
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:
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:
(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:
Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.