Greg Johnson echos Kevin MacDonald in opposing 'Holocaust' revisionism - One must ask why
Greg Johnson doesn't like Hitler or swastikas. He might draw him this way.
By Carolyn Yeager
IN A RECENT PODCAST WITH ANDREW ANGLIN purportedly to discuss the Alt-Right, Greg Johnson maintained the position that the Holocaust should be accepted, but ignored.
Holocaust revisionism is too complex for all but a few people to understand, he said, and professed the view that to be moral, White European-Americans must accept the Lie of the Holocaust and reject Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.
In this, he is unsurprisingly in tune with Kevin MacDonald and, let us not forget, every Jewish organization and media outlet in the world.
In this article, I have quoted extensively from Johnson and give my own response to his arguments. The emphasis is mine. I'm basically in agreement with Anglin, but he did not give a vigorous defense of revisionism and seemed determined to get along with Greg Johnson, in contrast to the past when he rejected Johnson due to his [Anglin's] professed hatred of homosexuality. He's obviously moderated that. The podcast can also be heard here.
@Approximately 17m Anglin says: Anyone on the Alt-Right would agree with my views on Hitler that “the holocaust did not happen. This has been blown all out of proportion into this war propaganda created by the US and the Allies during the war … this holocaust is the same as Assad bombing his own people or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This idea that the Third Reich was some kind of evil is just made up.”
@21:22 Johnson: There are two ways to answer “All right-wingers are Nazis and Nazis are evil, and therefore we're all evil.”
No, Nazis are not evil
Or
To dismiss as unjust and stupid and childish the accusation that everybody on the Right is a Nazi.
I think the latter is much easier than the former. I do not think that we have to rehabilitate the Third Reich simply to have sensible White Identity politics in every other white country on the earth. And even in Germany today, for that matter.
In my opinion, the latter is NOT easier than the former, but Greg thinks so because he doesn't believe the former. More on that later. Notice he says “other” when mentioning Germany, but then quickly adds Germany too, although doesn't explain how his failure to rehabilitate the Third Reich and absolve it of responsibility for the 'Holocaust' will lead to White identity politics in Germany.
Johnson is willing to sacrifice Germans as the perpetrators of genocide.
@22m: Nothing that we do depends on what happened in Germany during the Third Reich. Nothing depends on that, in my view.
Our views are based on objective reality, they're not based on historical contingencies; the fact of the matter is objectively there are races, races are different, they have different forms of life that are suitable to them, etc.
First he says “my view,” then switches to “Our views.” I would have asked him who is “our?”
In my view, the White race is probably more tolerant of homosexuality than any other race. That's why he wants to live in an all-White country where he and his kind are safer. He pretends he's giving an intellectual view while he's largely protecting his interest group … not Whites but homosexuals!
@23m Greg: Diversity creates conflict, friction. That's why the best solution to war and racial conflict is to give every people it's own homogeneous homeland. […] We need to restore the homogeneous homelands for white people. […] This argument doesn't depend on anything about the Third Reich. The Nazis could have killed 1, 2 or 6 million Jews; my answer to that: “I'm sorry, but if the Nazis killed 20 million jews that doesn't mean the white race has to die. That's an absurdity, a moral obscenity to argue that. We just need to reject that; we don't have to rehabilitate the Third Reich.”
IMO, Greg is always imagining massacres or other measures against homosexuals, like being placed into camps … especially by Nazi and/or Fascist governments. The Third Reich was officially opposed to homosexuality even though it tolerated those who kept their activities private and personal. This is exactly why Greg doesn't want to rehabilitate the Third Reich.
@24:30 Greg brought up the NSDAP's 25 Points: “The Germans needed to have colonies, and they wanted colonies of White people.” “They were talking about colonizing Ukraine and Russia.”
The idea to colonize Ukraine and Russia was in Hitler's 2nd unpublished book, which no one read until recently.
Andrew did cross Greg here on African colonies in the 25 Points, but Greg then made up that “they really were not interested in having African colonies” as though he knows what they were interested in.
Hadding Scott contributed that by the late 1930s Hitler was in fact extremely interested in having Germany's stolen African colonies returned. It was one of his demands in the negotiations with Britain on the eve of war with Poland, and it was a demand in one of Hitler's peace-offers from early 1940. The return of the colonies would have solved some big economic problems for Germany, Hadding says
That doesn't mean Hitler didn't also want to colonize Ukraine for its incredibly fertile farmland. So what? At that time the Soviets owned Ukraine and we know all about the Holodomor, don't we?
@26:50 Greg: My feeling about where our movement has to go … we're in a hole. We're regarded as immoral. When you're in a hole you need to stop digging. The way to do that is to be morally exemplary people to the extent that that is possible for us.”
So homosexuals can be or are 'morally exemplary'? Very rarely so. But Greg is in a warped reality. For him, Nazis are immoral because they condemn Jews and homosexuality.
28m Greg: The establishment has invested billions of dollars for decades turning anything to do with National Socialism into something as toxic as possible … and it's a very well-defended set of taboos that they created. It's a very well defended set of triggers that they've implanted in people. It's foolish for us to attack the enemy at their best defended points … because we can make a case for White identity and white interests that doesn't depend on whether or not the Nazis got it right or wrong. Or whether or not during the war they did things they ought not to have done.
What could they possibly have done that the Allies didn't do? It's not just Nazis but includes the entire WWI and WWII globalist, Jewish scenario. Johnson is OKAY with that globalist scenario, in reality, because it protects homosexuals.
29m Greg: There are many things I think the National Socialists did wrong, and I do think that their plans for the Slavic East really were genocidal – not in the general Plan Ost sense, which was a post-war fabrication as far as I can tell – but in the sense that we talk about White genocide today. They planned basically to make it impossible for these people to exist in their own homelands and to replace them with Germans … and that's immoral. If we're decrying White genocide today we should decry white genocide during the 2nd world war as well.
After admitting “Plan Ost” was a fabrication, what is Greg going by to conclude Hitler planned to kick these people out of their own homelands? Some of that territory was considered to be, and was, German homelands (where Germans had been previously kicked out). In Table Talk, Hitler speaks of how the “natives” will remain there and be better off than they were before. Realizing his argument is weak if this is all he can come up with (for one thing because it was never actually carried out), Greg goes back to generalizing:
29:55 Greg: Anyway, I just don't think anything we do today depends on rehabilitating the reputation of National-Socialism. Because it's a silly argument and the necessity is so great for us to take our own side
He often uses the term “silly” for what he cannot attack with facts or figures.
30:38 Greg: “Genocide” is what all this holocaust propaganda is presupposing. … The real lesson of the holocaust is that stateless peoples are susceptible to being exterminated, and the solution to that is for stateless people to have their own homelands.
The Jews have the ethno state and that means there will never be another holocaust for them. … They've got their mountain of nuclear and biological and chemical weapons. There's never going to be another genocide against Jews.
Notice he calls it propaganda, but still is willing to let it stand because 'the real lesson' is that people like him could be exterminated. Twice he affirms that the Jewish“holocaust-genocide” took place.
I ask, how do you create a White homeland? White is not an ethnicity. Others are ethno-states. Does he suggest a Europe based on skin color, on Whiteness, without national borders?
32:20 Andrew: I think the lesson of the holocaust is that it didn't happen but it should have.
I don't agree with this either. Destroying all the Jews the Third Reich could round up would not take care of the Jewish Problem in the world, but only make it stronger and give it a REAL moral advantage rather than the fake one they now hold. The Jewish extermination narrative is a lie.
As far as German-Polish border disputes, these have happened for at least a thousand years. Whether or not Germany thought they were owed a larger percentage of Poland or not is historically irrelevant.
Border disputes are actually relatively recent. There is a lot to be said about Polish-German history, but I am also, like Andrew, not going to go into it here.
As far as the argument that we can say Well, we're not the Nazis – when have logic, reason, facts and arguments won over the public mind? The larger public is moved by emotion and that is exactly what has determined the course of history. The Jews clearly understand this, to not take that approach. […] The idea you believe the same things that Hitler did but you can say “I had nothing to do with that” … it just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think anyone is going to go along with that.
[Andrew then expounded, contrary to Johnson, that it is the 'holocaust of the jews' that is the reason used to deny Whites the right to organize for their own interests.]
41m Greg: The whole revisionist school of thought is a vast rabbit hole that you can go down where you have to be weighing various arguments and criticizing facts, weighing the evidentiary worth of different documents … and it's the kind of thing only a tiny minority of people are mentally able to really engage in, in the first place. And, therefore, it's actually a very, very hard sell to convince people, rationally, that there's significant flaws in the standard holocaust narrative.
Absolutely FALSE on its face. I submit Greg is being devious here, although I grant his ignorance and lack of any attention to revisionist arguments, seeming only to have listened to Mark Weber long ago. What major revisionist book has he read? Clearly, none. He presents a specious argument based on personal opinion. The truth of the matter is that only revisionist-scholars who write books have to do this work he complains of. The rest of us can grasp it easily from the simplest of basic arguments put forth, as Andrew Anglin says. The “hard sell” comes not from its complexity but from the media lockdown that exists on it and the laws passed in most countries making it a crime to dispute it (which only adds another powerful argument against it). Of White countries, only the USA retains some semblance of freedom to discuss it, but those who do are still punished in social and economic ways, and still denied any media space other than the Internet to discuss it.
This is true tyranny.
And speaking of rabbit holes, it is actually the official Holocaust narrative that is a vast rabbit hole that doesn't lead to the given official conclusions.
@45m Greg: I just don't think that the facts (concerning WWII and the Jewish population) actually matter as much as they're made out to be. And I do agree that logic, facts and reason don't sway most people but moral arguments sway a lot of people. If you're going to sway a lot of people to the idea that 'Oh we can't be self-confident as White people because the Holocaust', you can deal more effectively with the moral intuitions and false moral intuitions that are at the root of that than by blowing up the conventional holocaust narrative.
Oh really? I disagree. I think people are interested in and influenced by objectively determined facts BUT they are prevented from hearing the facts of revisionism. That's all. When they DO hear them, they often have the beginning of a change of mind. Why does Greg seem so bent on NOT blowing up the conventional holocaust narrative? Why does MacDonald also not want to blow up the conventional holocaust narrative? Anglin did not ask him that. The subject changed to the idea that fewer and fewer people cared about it.
But that avoids the proper question. And allowed Greg to state: “Exactly. The issue is caring about the holocaust rather than what actually happened.” which is just another way of “stepping over” and leaving it alone.
DO NOT DISTURB THE OFFICIAL JEWISH NARRATIVE, is the position of Greg and Kevin.
@47:50 - Greg emphasized that Whites should say 'We have our own genocide to deal with, why should we be worrying about the Jewish genocide'. And “We need to withdraw the magic from it.”
Andrew - “That's my position. That's what I've always done. … I've always said it didn't happen, Jews just made it up.”
Greg and Andrew are not on the same page here!
@1hr14m: Greg discusses moving out of the US because he fears San Francisco is too expensive for him now that Paypal has dropped Counter-Currents and other monetary pressures may also come along. What was interesting is that he claims one has to live in a city in order to have good medical care, good restaurants, airport, etc.
This is NOT TRUE. He lives in cities because gays are safer there and he likes the annonymity. Greg is basically a liberal … that's what his“New Right” was about, a more liberal Right. A homosexual-accepting Right. This exactly explains who Greg Johnson is and what drives him. He demands the good life (restaurants, theaters, etc) and is good at getting others to pay for it. Whom does that remind you of?
He has never liked National-Socialism because it was too dictatorial. He wants lots of freedom. But he also wants to be protected. It's all about him and what's good for him and his tribe.
* * *
If Greg Johnson and Kevin MacDonald were honest, they would not be saying that 'Holocaust' revisionism is too complex or too boring and that only a tiny minority of people can understand it – they would be saying that only a tiny minority are courageous enough to put their name on books and articles about it . But many, many more (millions by my estimation) grasp their arguments very well and are convinced by them. They don't need to prove to themselves every detail about Zyklon B, how many bodies a crematory furnace holds and how much time it takes to burn a body down to ash, or where each and every Jew went during the war, etc. etc. to understand the whole incredible tale is not in the realm of reality.
Can you say 'war propaganda?'
Rather than being a never ending tunnel with many twists and turns, never truly arriving at a final destination, Holocaust revisionism is full of revelations that liberate one from brainwashing and media indoctrination. It's about showing how none of the extermination claims are actually proven … or provable!
I look forward to the day we all join hands around a campfire (virtual or real) in honor of the final victory over the Holocaust lie. What a victory that will be.
Category
Adolf Hitler, Holocaust Revisionism, Jews, Movement ControversiesBookmark/Search this post with
- 2218 reads
Comments
I think MacDonald is echoing
I think MacDonald is echoing Johnson, isn't he? Johnson had that "[Not] Dealing WIth the Holocaust" essay that was published on TOO a few years ago.
Greggy also supports the State of Israel. He admits that he has supported the State of Israel for a long time, since he was a "conservative." https://web.archive.org/web/20110912033625/http://www.counter-currents.c...
It's consistent, since the Holoocaust is above all Zionist propaganda.
Conspiracy or cowardice
No, I don't think MacDonald is echoing Johnson because I think MacDonald has held his views for a long time already. Of course, I can't say for sure and you are right about Greggy's essay from way back in 2012. All these guys seem to think the same way - who started it we can't say. Mark Weber? I am using "echoing" in the sense that I wrote about MacDonald just two weeks ago and also almost two years ago after he said the same things on the Swedish N-S radio program.
All these connections are enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist!
People should read (re-read) Thomas Dalton's essay in response to Greg's 2012 essay, posted here. I love Dalton.
Well, MacDonald testified for
Well, MacDonald testified for David Irving and I think he socializes with Weber. So he has had some significant bad influences. Both of those guys are cowards, who unfortunately have been credited with being important Revisionists.
The fact that MacDonald can't defend his position on Revisionism coherently suggests that he did not come up with it on his own.
I forgot that MacDonald
I forgot that MacDonald testified for David Irving. That was big of him.
Maybe we should ask him where/when he got the idea to ignore holocaust. Or someone should. I would really like to know.
As a professor in a university, it seems like an obvious choice to make.
colonies
In fact, by the late 1930s Hitler was extremely interested in having Germany's stolen African colonies returned. It was one of Hitler's demands in the negotiations with Britain on the eve of war with Poland, and it was a demand in one of Hitler's peace-offers from early 1940. The return of the colonies would have solved some big economic problems for Germany.
Greggy a Liberal, Yes
I read your painstaking analysis with great interest, Carolyn. Thanks for being such a good teacher and illuminator. I think, as you say, the best way to understand Greg Johnson is as a liberal, a "New Right" Liberal. I only tonight read his essay that Hadding Scott mentioned above, "Dealing with the Holocaust," and the only way the outrageous assertions he makes there can best be understood is as a liberal, even as a homosexual liberal. He wrote in his essay that mainstream historians have accepted all the main findings of revisionist historians. What? Who? When?
Greggy also stated in his essay that no way would White people buy "Jewish propaganda" if White people didn't already have an in-built propensity for buying Jewish BS -- which is another bizarre and outrageous claim.
Contradictorily, Greggy wants White people to take up the ethnic shield and sword and defend White people qua White people against the Jews -- but he said discussing the Holocaust, a "canonical" meme in the Jewish propaganda toolbox (according to Thomas Dalton), is nonetheless a "distraction." This clearly shows Greggy as some kind of ball-less wonder, willing to evade, rationalize, and equivocate so long as he doesn't do what he preaches to others they must do.
I note in your article here, Carolyn, you say White people are not an ethnicity, but Thomas Dalton in your link to his essay says White people are an identifiable ethnicity. I think maybe you both are right: Identifying White people as Europeans, say, makes them, I think, an ethnicity, but identifying White people as a global racial class undoes that ethnic designation.
Joey, I was surprised you did
Joey, I was surprised you did not know of Greg's 2012 article b/c I thought EVERYONE read it and talked about it at the time. Obviously not. Therefore I think it's time, as I told Franklin (see next comment), to rev up this engine again and try to thoroughly discuss/debate the arguments. However, I suspect that those on the "step over" side will refuse to join in.
Clearly, Greg's view has not changed one whit from 2012. No one's has. People are firmly entrenched on both sides. The issues are very clear-cut, and I think so is the right and wrong of it. For example, Franklin's "logic" does not impress me at all. So I think finding out where "White nationalists" stand on this would be very instructive and cleansing. Many have been hiding and trying to fit in everywhere. I say it's time to separate the wheat from the chaff and get people on board to really and truly "deal with the holocaust".
IN SPITE OF WHAT DALTON SAID, I still don't think White is or can be an ethnicity. That's for people who don't have a real ethnicity, which is always much stronger than identifying merely as White. For example, the EU bureaucrats want the identification as European to top or take precedence over the national identifications. That might sound good but it's simply the faster track toward thinking as a global citizen.
It's odd that Johnson wants every homogeneous group to have a homeland and self-determination, but he wants access to every "White" homeland as a "White" person. Seems he doesn't think his ideas through in a rigorous way.
I agree
Carolyn, I never read before last night the Greg Johnson's essay because I have pretty much avoided everything Greg Johnson writes or talks about. I take the advice of my betters in terms of Holocaust knowledge -- and you are one of them -- and Greg Johnson doesn't even come up on my radar screen. Besides, every day writers, journalists and publishers print so much data and information that I find I have only so much time to read all that's out there. I have to select. I'm surprised Johnson is getting as much attention as he is today, say, with Anglin. The Lite Right media is giving him more media attention, I guess, but his conversation with Anglin differs in no way from his 2012 essay. Too many people like Johnson, including Mark Weber, think it's cool, hip, or modern to skip over ("step over") the necessity of confronting the Holocaust. That position, to my mind, is so indefensible just on the basis of common morality -- truth, not bearing false witness – that I don't understand how the casuistical "step over" approach appeals. Too many lazy hedonists in the world?!
I agree with you that historical revisionism is really not that difficult to understand. You and your work, Carolyn, provide excellent, clear and detailed, information about the hoax behind the Holocaust; William Pierce gave talks about this topic, talks that are available online; Germar Rudolf's "Dissecting the Holocaust" is also an easily accessible reading experience and is available online, not to overlook the videos of Vince Reynouard among many others. I got a great deal of mileage out of Victor Thorn's simple book, "The Holocaust Hoax Exposed," which Jewish Amazon decided to censor and not sell. What you find when you begin reading the facts is that there are certain core ideas that repeat with each revisionist. Frederik Toben touched on this when he said, "The homicidal gas killings are a lie." Every revisionist brings up this fact.
And I agree as well with you on this: Johnson has not studied or evaluated historical revisionism with any degree of true seriousness. He uses his intellect to verbally dance around the lacunae in his knowledge about the Holocaust.
As for Franklin, he is waving his Lite Right colors now in his recent comments on your blog. He's a "step over" guy as well, yes, sadly. Cesar Tort commented about this on your previous article about him, and Franklin's current response to your latest article here was predictable, as I think you also already knew or suspected and so did Cesar Tort.
Your point that Whiteness is not an ethnicity I get, although I thought the best idea the WNs had was to get White people to identify as White rather than as German, French, Dutch, etc. so as to form a larger unity to confront Jewish power, but such an idea can certainly be another way of stripping away one's own ethnic identity for a global society of merely units, not specific identities. I hadn't even once looked skeptically at this -- until today.
I think it's definitely worthwhile to discuss the debate over and again. I know even the best arguments often don't persuade those who are committed to an opposite or alternate viewpoint, but I know as well that time and chance happeneth to us all, and circumstances do arise when people become more vulnerable to the truth or a different viewpoint when life strips them of their illusions or certainties and demands that one’s values be re-examined.
Greggy's "[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust"
The really shocking thing was that MacDonald refused to publish any essay contradicting Greggy's position, as plainly rotten as it was. I know that our friend August submitted one.
Part of that, though, could be the general phenomenon that I've noticed on TOO, that PhDs don't need to write well or make good sense to get published there. PhDs get the red carpet.
Again, I agree
Yes, this whole thing is about Greggy's NOT dealing with the Holcaust. Your words are so apt, Hadding. And, yes, I've noticed a lot of poor writing on TOO by these Ph.D.s. I've copied whole essays at times into Microsoft Word and ran the spell check, grammar check and the Grammarly system just to verify some of my own conclusions and more. Even dangling participles and run-on sentences are acceptable! TOO is a Ph.D. mill.
Thomas Dalton's 2012 response
Thomas Dalton's 2012 response-essay was also submitted to MacDonald at TOO and was rejected. And Dalton was a published revisionist at the time with a well-selling book! And a PhD !! Made no difference.
I wonder if Johnson had any say in the matter? Probably. He couldn't hold his own.
Theoretical vs. practical attitude
I think this debate is not between truthfulness and ignorance, cowardice (or even homosexuality), but between a theoretical and a practical attitude. It is true that the whole post WW II ethos is based on the Holocaust idea and that things would be easier for us if this myth be dispelled. But in order to achieve that we would need to "re-educate" the public that has been indoctrinated for more than half a century. To be successful we would need full control over the media, education and also the government. Specialist websites only reach a small minority of intelligent people capable of critical thinking. If you want to achieve political success in the real world, you will have to take into account the dominant myths, no matter how false. It is therefore wiser to "step over" the Holocaust. Besides, basic ethnic rights for Whites still exist, whether the Holocaust happened or not. That is also true for the Germans, the absolute majority of whom were born after the war. The most urgent need is to have politics stop further non-white immigration, not to "revise" history.
Theoretical?
I'm glad you clarified your position, Franklin, that you don't think "revising history" is possible. You are in the "step over" camp.
It looks like this issue needs a lot more public airing. What with the 2-year jail sentence just handed down for Frau Haverbeck, it's a good time for it.
Greggy is comfortable with hypocrisy.
Greggy's idea of "stepping over" is to say that the Holocaust has nothing to do with us. In other words, he's willing to let an earlier generation of Germans be victimized with this smear. It means that we distance ourselves from them.
This position is contradicted by the racial idea. Germans are the largest ancestry-group in the United States. If you espouse race then you cannot separate Americans from Germans. Either we are all one race and we revere our ancestors and cherish our brothers, or we are a bunch of individualists who don't care about our racial kin. Greggy's idea of stepping over belongs to individualism. From a racial perspective, we cannot disown the Germans of two generations ago.
I might add that the Jews and other anti-White groups also won't let us disown the Germans. By allowing the Germans to be smeared we leave ourselves more vulnerable. A good analogy is that South Africa made herself more vulnerable by distancing herself from Rhodesia in the 1970s. South Africa did not save herself through that expedient. The Jews already for quite some time have been making similar accusations against White people other than the Germans. They even blame French and Polish people for what happened while France and Poland were occupied, and they blame the rest of the White world for not doing enough, etc. And then there are other, similar accusations against Americans over slavery, etc. The Jews are not going to let us distance ourselves from this.
But to me the most serious problem is how this kind of argument affects us.
If, in our eagerness to avoid trouble, we use an individualist argument while maintaining a fundamentally racial outlook, it means that we are hypocrites. We are being dishonest toward ourselves. This is both a cause of weakness, insofar as it corrodes idealism, and a result of weakness insofar as cowards are drawn to that option.
On the other hand, if we sincerely embrace the individualist argument that allows us to disown the Holocaust, then we have ceased to be racial thinkers.
Greggy says over and over that the Holocaust is the Jews' strongest point. It's not. There is a difference between the Jews' strongest point, and the point that they use to attack us. If he really believes what he says, then Greggy has mistakenly regarded these two things as the same.
The Holocaust is the most important of various weapons that the Jews use to attack us, but their use of that weapon makes them vulnerable, because it is dishonest. Once that dishonesty is exposed, the weapon becomes a liability for them, and they can't use it without harming themselves. The logic of Holocaust Revisionism is inexorable.
If we are going to refrain from making arguments just because we are outgunned in the realm of mass-media then we might as well just give up right now.
It is necessary to have complete control of mass-media to make the public support a proposition that is patently false, but the requirement for poking holes in such propaganda is much smaller. All that it requires is a credible argument and some limited ability to get the word out. The little boy who declares that the emperor has no clothes is the classic metaphor.
Now, stupid and cowardly people will ignore the little boy and the evidence of their senses, but not everybody will, and those are the people who count the most.
Holocaust difficulty
The fundamental issue of Holocaust is this: the homicidal gas chamber killings are a lie!
Crisis Acting Jews
Do Jews have a list of 6 million names of gassed Jews?
When you send animals to the slaughterhouse, how many are "survivors?" How could Jews survive a slaughterhouse?
Many Jews were in multiple camps. Why send Jews from one slaughterhouse to another?
If Zklyon B turns bodies red, Jewish reports of blue bodies is "crisis acting."
War propaganda isn't history. Jewish World Almanac reports no historical drop in Jews by 6 million in the war period.
The fastest way to overturn the establishment is what Minister Oso of Japan said, basically, that "Hitler had good intentions."
Good intentions gives you total absolution in our culture.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-deputy-pm-aso-hot-water-over-hitler-071602470.html
The Hitler we appreciate had good intentions.
Very nice
Very nice, very effective comment. Lorenz.
List of "gassed' Jews.
@Lorenz Kraus
For an answer to your question, go to : yadvashem.org/visit - digital collections - the Central Database of Shoah victims' names - frequently asked questions - how many names are there in the Names Database ?
They say they have more than 6,5 million names, but because some names have been counted double they estimate there are 4,5 million "genuine" names, whatever that means.
Franklin
Names at Yad Vashem have not only been counted double, but quadruple, septuple and decuple.
You are very strange to me, because you direct Lorenz to go there as if for valid information, then put "genuine" in quotes and imply it's not believable. It always seems as if you're trying to straddle the fence.
No implication of truth
I directed Lorenz to Yad Vashem because he asked if THE JEWS have a list of 6 million gassed Jews, only to show him what THEY say, not implying that it is true. I remember however that some years ago they had only 3 million names. Apparently they have "progressed" in the mean time...
Ambiguous
What should be clarified is that Yad Vashem's "database" is simply names sent in by Jews of their "100 relatives" who they lost track of (and probably gladly so) during the upheaval, and their moving to the USA, Israel, Australia, South America, etc. It has no validity in any forensic sense and YV admits this. It's one of those schmaltzy "memory" or memorializing exercises. It is support for the propaganda effort that all Jews understand and try to do their part to assist in.
As Anglin showed in his
As Anglin showed in his discussion here, most "revisionists" hold embarrasingly stupid positions. Anglin claimed that there were MORE Jews after the war than before. Of course there were not. If he is referring to the Almanac crapola, it specifically states that it extrapolated from 1938 data for its figures. Very many Jews died in the war years - significantly many.
Other STUPID positions. Leuchter's stupid argument that Zyklon fumigations would necessarily be explosive is flat-out wrong. At least hundreds of thousands of fumigations of rooms and buildings were performed by the Germans during the war - in practically the identically same way as alleged for the Zyklon gassings - only in rooms w/o persons in them. To up the stupidity level on this, Faurisson cites the Nuremberg document NI-9912 which was the guide for those performing building fumigations with Zyklon in Germany during the war. He cites the part at the beginning under the heading "Danger of explosion:" which emphatically states in bold letters "nicht explosiv" (not explosive). From THIS he goes on and on about how this really means that Zyklon fumigations are ridiculously explosive.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-document-among-others-stat...
NO ONE should use Revisionist dunces for ANY cause. They are generally embarassments. Greg Johnson is very correct to say that the arguments are too involved for anyone to get them w/o the requisite thought and research required to come to sensible conclusions. Keep Holocaust revisionism out of your cause if you don't wish to embarass yourself.
To the Snake Blake
Anglin is not a revisionist by any stretch of the imagination. It's like saying every holocaust believer is a historian.
I'll simply ask you: If the revisionists are such dunces and such an embarassment to themselves, why has every country in Europe, and Israel, made revisionism illegal? Why was "Nazi Grandma" Frau Haverbeck sentenced to two years in prison this week for speaking her revisionist views? Why was Amazon pressured by Jewish organizations to stop selling revisionist books?
You answer that.
That has nothing to do with
That has nothing to do with sensible people not wanting anything to do with dumbo arguments such as Anglin's.
If you think your average Holocaust revisionist, including yourself or Hadding, has a good handle on these matters you are wrong. It doesn't take much - although more than your average person would get around to - to agree with the debunkings of the falsities you would be spouting.
There ARE outstanding Revisionist arguments to be considered; but they aren't easily stated or conclusive. You are under the mistaken impression that there are easily comprehended knock-down arguments that can be made. There are not. As easily as you can state them is as easily as they can be debunked.
Learned people such as MacDonald and Johnson probably intuitively know the can of worms involved in this - albeit lacking in a full grasp of these issues.
It has everything to do with
That has nothing to do with ...
You can't answer my question so you pull this. FAIL.
If you think your average Holocaust revisionist ...
YOU are wrong. People know a lot more than you think. It is the holohoaxers like yourself who keep trying to make it appear all complicated. It's a strategy.
There ARE outstanding Revisionist arguments to be considered ...
Damn right there are. I am NOT under any "mistaken impression" but you are mistaken that every one of them can be debunked. Hoaxers can come up with ridiculous counter-attacks and they do. They have no shame.
Learned people such as MacDonald and Johnson...
Don't make me laugh. They are not learned about holocaust, but ignorant. Where are YOUR great arguments? You fail to give them even when asked. Don't waste our time here anymore if you have nothing specific to say.
Of course you know that
Of course you know that Anglin is no Holocaust Revisionist. I've never heard any specialist in Holocaust Revisionism use that World Almanac population argument, only amateurs. Anglin is no expert on National-Socialism either. The only reason why Anglin was debating Greggy is that Greggy had attacked Anglin during the debate with that libertarian. Nonetheless he performed not too badly.
HCN gas is explosive at medium concentrations. At high and low concentrations it is not explosive. The Degesch manual says this.
For delousing, you can avoid the danger of explosion by keeping the concentration low, which means that the process will take longer.
In an execution gas-chamber it is not acceptable for the process to take a long time. It is possible to do it that way, but not acceptable. Using low concentrations of HCN is therefore not an option for killing people. The solution is to make sure that a high concentration of HCN is achieved quickly, and that the gas is then evacuated quickly after the execution.
The problems with the Jews' Holocaust story are enormous, starting with the fact that the story keeps changing. Anybody who says that Revisionism lacks merit is either a Jew or very poorly informed. People who pontificate from ignorance are fools, and I think you've embarrassed yourself.
I Agree
I agree with you, Carolyn. The holohoax myth MUST be laid bare and its devious intent shown for what it is... a contrived tale of victimhood to shield the jews from any criticism of their words or deeds. If anyone notices any group behavioral patterns, strategems or other united machinations within the tribe, they are immediately branded as haters, bigots and nazis. This second greatest lie in history has become a literal religion and if one questions any tenets of it, they are a blaspheming heretic deserving of imprisonment or worse. (In case you're wondering... the single greatest lie in history is that they are God's chosen people.) The holocaust story must be crushed if we are ever to achieve total freedom.
What Jews have told me...
I use to live in a 'big' city when I was younger, when I had a different understanding of things. I had friends of all races and ethnicties, two of my friends were Jews. Both told me or strongly insinuated that the Holocaust was a great exxageration. One admitted most of the deaths in the camps were due to lack of soap near the end of the war, the typhus epidemics. The other had a father from Hungary who immigrated here and he said his father told him that if Hitler had killed all the Jews that it is claimed that he had killed, there wouldnt really be any Jews left (in Hungary). I remember him shaking his head severely side to side and very seriously saying "There is no way ... it did not happen." Meaning, it didn't happen.
Just an anedoteal story for everyone, not an "argument"
BTW, does Anglin ever publish revisionist material on the DS ? Seems to me it is kinda lacking.
The Daily Stormer seems to be
The Daily Stormer seems to be more oriented toward "gas the Kikes" trolling than toward Holocaust Revisionism. The problem is that this benefits the Jews. The Jews need that bogeyman to maintain solidarity. Jews "draw strength" from the Holocaust. Only non-Jews, and maybe some Jews that weren't strongly committed to Jewish solidarity, are really bothered by that kind of trolling.
I tried to influence this situation a few weeks ago by starting a discussion thread on the Daily Stormer's BBS called "How would you debunk the Holocaust in 140 characters or less?"
Sympathy for Anglin
Dave, Anglin used to be quite open to publishing an occasional revisionist piece, but as he developed his Stormer style, everything went to jokes and ridicule. That's okay, his site is not suitable for serious revisionist work.
Boy, he has got some serious enemies after him. I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever get a site up again, let alone DS. I actually hope he does because this is not a good sign that it can happen.
Reconciliation
Whatever Anglin did wrong in your or anyone's view should be put on ice. We're in this together and our enemies don't care if you think of this or that minute topic this or that way. We all see the big elephant and anyone who exposes them is on their chopping list. Normie Conservative Christians voicing concerns over homosexuality are going to be next.
So, I would suggest we put our differences aside, apologize for bad words we said to each other and get it together. #JeSuisAndrewAnglin
Anglin's IP no. and/or domain name extension
Has everybody gone crazy? Nobody can be banned from the internet for the simple reason that nobody knows who anybody is. I have 2 sites in Malaysia and 2 in Singapore. Look up the domain names on WhoIs and you learn absolutely NOTHING. There is COMPLETE PRIVACY PROTECTION. Look up the name of ANY Asian country + "Internet service providers" and you'll find hundreds of highly modern, efficient Internet providers ready to sell you a site and with domain you want, dailystormer.info, dailystormer.net, etc. I did get one of my domain names cancelled for 2 months by a Jewish organisation called Spamhaus, so I know it's possible for the Jews to screw you out of a domain name, but hell, for 150 bucks you'll be up and running again in 2 days. I repeat: ANY ASIAN COUNTRY = INTERNET SERVER.The Asians do not care about the Jews. How can anyone be stupid enough to trust the United States to do anything? I have nothing to do with the U.S. -- nothing.
"Zensurfrei" is good though, google search "Gary Lauck" or "Nazi Lauck" and you'll find him. He can be trusted. I've known him for years. He is a man of his word. I vouch for him 100%. I repeat: NOBODY CAN BE BANNED FROM THE INTERNET. Change the extension, use a pseudonym, if you're paranoid, and for 150 bucks you're up and running again in 2 days. The Asians do not care about the Jews.
Colonies
I'm glad you dissected this interview, Carolyn.
Regarding the colonies, it is exactly as you said. It was about the African colonies England stole and didn't even need or make use of. Much like many parts of the British Empire, London just sat on those possessions for no one else (especially Germans) to have access to markets.
And yes, Generalplan Ost is a fabrication. How can Greg admit that, yet still argue as if it was true? It was meant to be a sphere of influence of Germany with, best case scenario, using the Urals as a natural wall to keep Asiatics out of Europe, while bringing prosperity to those unused lands of Ukraine and Russia. There is so much potential there but Russians and Ukrainians don't make use of their land to the fullest and many flee to Germany or receive foreign aid.
Wouldn't it be better to have Germans run their states for them, bringing prosperity to their lands, good jobs and higher yields etc that uplift their economies and also help their German cousins in the Fatherland?
And this isn't even a NS ideology. This beneficial migration of assorted Germans has been going on for centuries. And Germany always sends their best abroad and doesn't dump their undesirables.
Again, thanks for bringing this up, Carolyn.
Wait, huh?
When you say, speaking of Ukraine and Russia: "Wouldn't it be better to have Germans run their states for them.......help their German cousins in the Fatherland?" Do you mean to say that it's acceptable to break into your cousin's house, steal his property and deny him authority to govern his own? Like, for his own good? I'm confused but that sounds a little like a conquest to me. Are you good with that? Every tyranny throughout history, including the one we live under today in the US, has always used the "It's for your own good!" excuse. Seems kinda delusional to me.
Germanism vs Judaism
Russia has been ruled by German Emperors for centuries and was founded by Swedish Goths. Katharina already invited millions of Germans to work the fields etc, for they did it best.
With Jewish Bolshevism ruling in Russia, it would have been good to have them removed by Germans. And Russians and Ukrainians aren't the brightest of our peoples and without Western inventions, they are pretty much en par with the Chinese. They can maintain a level of civilization and copy what Westeners give them, or utilize foreign aid (from the US in USSR's case).
Sure, Hitler would have granted them a level of autonomy, much like the EU does with its members. And before you go on whining, Russians did this too for centuries. From Latvia to Khazacstan, to Mongolia. With Berlin having the last say in Moscow, the Urals would have served as natural wall. The Russians and especially under Jewish control, shipped all these Asiatics within their country West.
I don't see any problem here at all. If Denmark was the great national socialist state and they would expand their sphere of influence over Germany, I would support that also.
And it's not tyranny if the protector has something to offer and doesn't simply dismantle the industries and loot and plunder the conquered land.
"Do you mean to say that it's
"Do you mean to say that it's acceptable to break into your cousin's house, steal his property and deny him authority to govern his own?..."
Excuse me. What you say has a certain validity, and there will always be people who feel that way, regardless of how beneficial a system imposed by "conquest" may actually be (in actual fact, protectorates and colonies are almost invariably imposed by treaty, not by conquest at all), but I have a great distrust of all these moralistic false analogies.
For example, you get drafted to fight some stupid war, and you say you are "opposed to war", or "this war in particular", and they say, "well, if you were walking down the street and you saw some big thug beating up some little old lady, what would you do?"
To my mind, this is a perfectly stupid argument. For example, how can you compare Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 (it's just one example) to a "thug on the street beating up some little old lady" (that is, unless you really know absolutely nothing about it)?
I know this isn't a law case, and we're not lawyers, but in law it is not generally permissible to argue by analogy. This is because analogies are almost always misleading. This is because they are designed to assume in the premise that which is to be proven in the conclusion, thus allowing the arguer to ignore the actual factual situation (assuming anyone can agree upon what that is). But that is the problem: what are the facts?
At that point, 1/3 of Poland
At that point, 1/3 of Poland was inhabited by Germans against their will. Poland refused all reasonable offers to solve the issue and persecuted ethnic Germans. After years of mocking Berlin, Poles had it coming. Face to face, one on one, Poland lasted 3 weeks. Without London using the Poles to pursue world war, the Poles would have agreed to some understanding with their neighbo, especially considering they were anti-Russian and anti-Communist. Practically speaking, they would have joined the axis like most other Central European countries.
Anglin and DS went south when
Anglin and DS went south when he got into the MGTOW and PU artist stuff about 2 yrs ago. Then he added more nonsense later by becoming even more overtly anti white woman with the white sharia mess. Early on I commented to him once about maybe adding a permanet sidebar to the side of the page showing several points made by revisionsits to show newcomers how the holoacaust is a myth- he commented back that it was a good idea but he didnt have time to write such a thing up and post it on DS. But he apprently has time to post everything else he posts.
DS is still up, I accessed it today. BTW, 'Eric Striker DS' on his twitter page about a week ago mentioned that Andrew recently recieved a single anonymous bitcoin donation of $60,000 dollars. Someone out there has that much disposable income to give him ? DS is a liability to us.
As one EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID PERSON to another
To: blake121666 (not verified)Thu, 31/08/17
[COMMENT BY C.P.: As one EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID PERSON to another, I am glad to meet you.
I am amazed by the glibness with which the anti-revisionists get everything wrong while adopting an insufferable pretence of tremendous moral and intellectual superiority. –C.P.]
For example:
“Leuchter's stupid argument that Zyklon fumigations would necessarily be explosive is flat-out wrong.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: That is untrue. Leuchter is perfectly correct. He says that HCN is not normally explosive at the concentrations usually involved in capital punishment gas chambers at some distance away from the source. Explosive concentrations may however occur near the source, i.e., before it has had a chance to circulate around in the chamber. He mentions a figure of 7000 ppm at the source, which he claims is indeed explosive. Thus the danger of explosion does exist. He also mentions the need for special anti-sparking electrical plugs and switches. The point is not what YOU OR I think the theoretical danger actually is, the point is that nobody would ever install a set of 5 double-muffle crematory ovens in the same building as another room full of potentially explosive gas floating merrily around in structures that could not be hermetically sealed. THAT is the point. – C.P.]
“At least hundreds of thousands of fumigations of rooms and buildings were performed by the Germans during the war - in practically the identically same way as alleged for the Zyklon gassings - only in rooms w/o persons in them.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: Absolutely identical, yes, without people, yes, but also without a working crematorium in the same building. –C.P.]
[…],” Faurisson cites the Nuremberg document NI-9912 which was the guide for those performing building fumigations with Zyklon in Germany during the war. He cites the part at the beginning under the heading "Danger of explosion:" which emphatically states in bold letters "nicht explosiv" (not explosive).”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: I have the complete text right here and I can quote it to you if you like. It implies that it is “not explosive” at the VERY LOW CONCENTRATIONS REQUIRED TO KILL INSECTS. Higher concentrations can indeed be explosive. Prof. Faurisson is quite correct about this. He recently distributed a news item describing the manner in which the STATIC ELECTRICITY FROM THE FUR COAT OF A CAT being “gassed” in an animal shelter in a small “gas chamber” using HCN caused an explosion which DESTROYED THE “GAS CHAMBER” AND KILLED THE CAT. I repeat: the STATIC ELECTRICITY FROM THE FUR COAT OF A CAT. –C.P.]
“From THIS he goes on and on about how this really means that Zyklon fumigations are ridiculously explosive.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: Nothing is ridiculous in nature. Things are what they are, nothing more or less. Regardless of the how remote YOU might think the danger is, no one will install a set of 5 double-muffle crematory ovens in the same building where even a POTENTIALLY explosive gas would be floating merrily around in an adjacent room which could not be hermetically sealed (flimsy wooden doors with glass panes, key holes, etc.). This would never be done even if the room COULD be hermetically sealed.
In safety procedures and industry generally, you don't take chances. For example, if you work in a railroad yard, you are not allowed to step on a rail. Did you know that? You can step on rails all your life and maybe nothing will happen. But if you have a quarter of a million miles of railroad and a quarter of a million railroad workers, someday, somewhere, somebody is going to have an accident. Specifically, he'll probably step on the rail, slip on some ice or grease or something, fall and hit his head on the other rail, and be knocked unconscious with his feet on top of the first rail; then somebody "humps" a boxcar to make up a new train, and cuts his feet off! So, you don't step on rails. –C.P.]
. To: Hadding (not verified)Fri, 01/09/17
“HCN gas is explosive at medium concentrations. At high and low concentrations it is not explosive.”
[That’s like saying, if I drink an OUNCE of whisky, I don’t get drunk. If drink a QUART of whisky, I don’t get drunk, either. But if I drink PINT of whisky, I do. That’s ridiculous. –C.P.]
“The Degesch manual says this.”
[You must be quoting out of context. I don’t believe it.–C.P.]
“For delousing, you can avoid the danger of explosion by keeping the concentration low, which means that the process will take longer.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: The concentration will necessarily be very low if you’re only killing lice anyway. Actually, speed has nothing to do with it. Penetrating the cracks in walls and killing the eggs and larvae, as well as just adult insects, necessarily takes time. Document NI-9912 mentions 16 hours for clothes moths. –C.P.]
“In an execution gas-chamber it is not acceptable for the process to take a long time.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: What is your definition of “a long time”? Half an hour? An hour? Two hours? The longest time on record is 19 minutes. The rapist Caryl Chessman took 13 minutes to die in the 1950s. Of course, the victims are unconscious most of this time anyway, so really… who cares? –C.P]
“It is possible to do it that way, but not acceptable. Using low concentrations of HCN is therefore not an option for killing people.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: Why don’t we get down to specifics? The toxicity of cyanide gas is dependent on its concentration in the air. It used to be believed that a concentration of 5 ppm was harmless and could be breathed indefinitely; that 300 parts per million would kill a man, I believe, very approximately, in half an hour; that 500 ppm would kill a man in 15 minutes, and that 1000 ppm would kill him instantly. This last, at least, was found to be untrue. This last figure was then raised to 2,000, then 3,000, and even higher. Fred Leuchter mentions a concentration of 7000 ppm. Detecting the presence of HCN gas in the air is child’s play. You can do it with chemical paper. But how do you know the exact concentration, which may vary in different parts of the room? Since victims of cyanide poisoning become UNCONSCIOUS and may remain unconscious for up to 6 HOURS, how do you know they are dead? You’ve got 2,000 unconscious people in a room. If you wait long enough, they’ll probably all die, OK, but how do you know when? How long do you wait? How do you know when to quit throwing those cans through the hole? –C.P.]
“The solution is to make sure that a high concentration of HCN is achieved quickly,…”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: In the case of Zyklon, the rapidity of that “achievement” will be limited by the nature of the product, in which the acid was absorbed in a carrier base to SLOW THE EVAPORATION RATE AND MAKE IT LESS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN BEINGS. I question the logic of using such a product for mass extermination purposes. –C.P.]
[“and that the gas is then evacuated quickly after the execution.”
[COMMENT BY C.P.: You are forgetting the ammonia required to neutralize the acid. THEN you can evacuate it. How do people forget these things? –C.P.]
I just saw this.
Have you looked at the Degesch manual? I was repeating what I had read, which is that there is a danger-zone, between no HCN and saturation with HCN, where explosion is a danger.
I assume that this is because there is a fuel-to-air ratio, just as in a gasoline engine, where explosion can happen easily. Sawdust suspended in air is explosive, but a room packed with solid wood is not explosive, nor is plain air. The medium between the extremes is where you get the effect.
More on Safety Procedurs
Again, with reference to safety procedures, if the Germans learned one thing from the Hindenburg disaster, it was that you do not fool with “potentially” explosive gases. Yet Zeppelins were considered an established, safe and comfortable method of air travel, with thousands of successful flights over a 26-year period, plus extensive service in the first war. Then, for no particular reason, WHAMMO!
The safest way to “gas” people is with inert or oxygen-blocking gases, such as helium, nitrogen, or argon. “Right to Die” groups used to sell “suicide kits” consisting of a plastic bag (to go over your head), a tube, and a container of gas. The easiest and safest way to “gas” yourself (should you feel so inclined – please don’t) is simply to build a charcoal fire in a sealed room -- charcoal, nota bene, not “Diesel exhaust”.
Lastly, it is not true that revisionism has no simple arguments. At bottom, it is all very simple. All you have to do is say, “How long does it take to cremate a human body today, with all the most modern equipment?”
There’s the whole Hoaxoco$t shot in the ass right there. Or just say it’s all bullshit and you don’t believe it. The prerequisite to successful action is the courage and the will to be truthful.
Kevin MacDonald's evasions
Kevin MacDonlad has an academic's preference for material accepted by official university experts. He's not happy afaik still with the 'Holohoax' - but neither is he happy with psyops, other probable frauds such as the 'rape of Nanking', US atrocities wherever they might be, Khazars and other assorted groups who may be 'Jews', and science frauds. His palette is narrow, and he sticks to it. It's far too narrow for my taste, but makes sense. In actual online conversation he is far more open - when he talks about the aggressiveness of the Jewish race replacement policies since earlier than 1924 he speaks out unmistakably
Hi Revevisionist, nice to see
Hi Revevisionist, nice to see you here. What you're saying is that MacDonald is an academic who prefers to remain in good standing in that environment. But how does his comfort zone being limited to informing us about the "aggressiveness of Jewish race replacement policies" while ignoring the mounting evidence of actual "Crimes," such as all the psyops they carry out (Holohoax, US Liberty, 9/11, etc etc), really help to stop the race replacement? Exposing the latter would actually work! So that's where the emphasis should be.
Henry Ford's "The International Jew" is more instructive and effective than his trilogy.
German African colonies
I would estimate that I have listened to between 40 and 60 hours of Hitler speeches and I can assure you that the National Socialists did want African colonies, and wanted them back when they were stolen (i.e., confiscated in violation of Wilson's 14 points). Togo, Camaroon, Tanganyika, South West Africa, a few valuable South Sea Islands (for example, the Caroline Islands, and a few others -- I forget offhand). They considered the theft of their colonies a great injustice and were quite embittered about it. What they wanted them for is a bit of a mystery to me; but let that pass. Everybody had colonies in those days, just not the Germans. Why? Because they were stolen. Hitler mentions this in speech after speech (perhaps most notably in his famous "Hitler Replies to Roosevelt" speech of, I think, April 1938. In this same speech, he says that this is "one demand which they will always return to and will never drop: the return of their colonies" ("die Rückgabe unsererer Kolonien").
Thanks, Carlos
One shoud never accept anything Greg Johnson says about National Socialism/Third Reich/Hitler as factual. He fits his "facts" to match his bias.