Talking with John Friend about anti-revisionism among pro-White activists

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2017-09-07 14:30

The Realist Report for September 6th focuses on a conversation between Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin with Tara McCarthy. John and I stuck with what was said about Holocaust Revisionism and Hitler-Nazis, Johnson's past comments on the subject, and Prof. Kevin MacDonald's similar positions taken in two separate podcasts that I had spoken up about.

I also used Johnson's statements from his post "My Conversation with Andrew Anglin", especially that the holocaust could be summed up as "a big pile of dead Jews." John and I frankly discussed my problem with Johnson's homosexuality as it impacts on his view of the National Socialist Third Reich, and other reasons for avoiding real debate about revisionism. 1h16m.

Katana produced a nice transcript of this program, with interesting graphics. Much appreciated. Check it out.


IMO, the easiest definition would be "Just another expulsion of Jews in European history. The uniqueness is that Germany was about to occupy almost all of Europe and Russia, so it would have been impossible for the Jews to simply move from one country to the next as they did in the past, when one or another White nation had enough of them. Also, because during the 1930-40's, Russia, France, Britain and a few others like the Netherlands still possessed 3/4 of the world, so when Germany captured Paris for example, Berlin had influence over France's colonies also, etc. The Nazis were in agreement with Zionism. Not necessarily in Palestine and certainly not with a Jewish diaspora lobbying for their nation state in Europe. Deaths occurred. It was war, but no systematic genocide took place."
The anti-Hitler sentiments can be found among varies pro-white groups. Homosexuals, jealous Western nationalists and bias Poles, for the most part. The homosexuals see the Röhm-Putsch affair badly, of course.    

You were in good form, Carolyn, in this podcast.  Your voice was very strong and your viewpoint was very clear.  
I was glad to learn that John Friend shares your viewpoint on Hitler and revisionism.  I've always agreed with your viewpoint (how could I not?  You were my mentor in this whole arena and, like you, I was ready to be convinced by the evidence), and you nailed Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson for their "step over the Holocaust" positions, positions which only help the Jewish agenda and, at the same time, at the expense of White people.
I'm surprised that you've come around to be willing to talk further with Mark Weber.  I think your idea to talk with him and ask him questions is wonderful.  I hope John Friend can put that arrangement together.
Thank you for doing another podcast with John Friend and letting us eavesdrop.  It was well worth listening to.

I could be wrong but I feel that Weber will not talk to me in public, based on my being too unrelenting, haha. But he could very well be willing to talk to John. I hope so. I could send John some questions for Mark.

David Cole is another person in the chain of "liberalilizing" the holocaust revisionist standards ... or as Hadding Scott coined: Semi-Revisionism. The Jew Cole is very influential on Weber (who seems to be easily influenced). Read here:

Just the first part of it is enough.

Yeah, yikes, Carolyn!  I read the first half of David Cole's article and what stood out for me was not only the admission that he and Mark Weber are friends, but also that he views Daily Stormer as a "hate site."  It's bad enough that Liberals, in general, support the idea of "hate speech," that is, support the idea of censorship and suppression of free speech, but in this article David Cole is talking out of both sides of his mouth, defending the idea that he's okay with authors publishing ideas contrary to his own viewpoint, while also judging and labeling websites such as The Daily Stormer as "hate" sites. This is BS. 

For me, it is a relief that Stormer is no longer visible. I have not downloaded Tor in order to follow it. I do think his articles about women are unnecesarily hateful and not funny, and sure do not uphold the virtures of Western Civilization he claims he wants to uphold.

He selects the worst examples he can find as "evidence" for his views. I don't think that is very effective for the long run.

Still, I think the First Amendment should be upheld altogether and not chipped away at. I am against the designation hate speech and hate crimes. But does someone like Anglin hurt rather than help? He needs to understand the difference between ridicule and viciousness.

So Stormer came back online and I just read the Heather Heyer article, Wow, amazing information. Well done, I have to say. 

FURTHER UPDATE: Now I find credit for this should go to Occidental Dissent who published the shocking exposes with fantastic pictures and videos beginning on Sept. 5:

Followed by this one on Sept. 6: Heather Heyer was allowed to commit crimes, and on Sept 7, the even more fantastic Reconstructing Heather Heyer's Movements. Great investigating. Kudos to Hunter Wallace and Marcus Cicero.

Dismissing Anglin is a little bit like the snobbery that Julius Streicher endured from other party members as his reward for winning the propaganda war in the early 30s. 

Semi-Revisionism is Dr. Faurisson's term. He has called David Irving a Semi-Revisionist. I may be the first to extend the concept to include Weber and Cole.

"The Holocaust is the last stand for implicit homosexuality," to borrow a Richard Spencer aphorism.
Gay rights are based on the Holocaust, "first they came for the gays!"
You're spot on about these 80-20 Charlie Brown leaders. They might be good on 80% of the topics, but sell us out 20% of the time. That's a failure rate of 20%, which is a 100% failure rate when it counts most. 
Charlie Brown won't save Europe.
The Holcaust is when Jews lost control over Europe and Europeans celebrated.
They enjoyed a world free of Jewish domination; something Americans who are spiritually, economically, politically, and sexually dominated by Jews can't imagine.

"No way out, except the holocaust"
Carolyn Yeager

The paramount importance of definition in any discussion is a principle that has been with us since Plato. It is impossible to resolve a dispute about a question that has not been defined. Greggy Johnson shows himself as a fundamentally uneducated man when he rejects this principle.
Professor Faurisson considers gassings to be the essence and the sine qua non of the Holocaust for good reason. Gassings are not only supposed to account for the overwhelming majority of Jewish deaths, but are also the part of the story where it is clear that Jews were killed gratuitously and not as part of an effort to suppress guerrilla-activity or sabotage. 
If some Jews were shot or hanged here and there as part of an effort to stop guerrilla-activity or sabotage, that cannot be the Holocaust, because the Holocaust is supposed to be a unique event where all Jews were to be killed just for being Jews. That is how the Jews define it.
For Greggy Johnson, however, if Anne Frank died in a disease-epidemic, that alone is enough to justify the use of the word Holocaust, and you are a heartless bastard if you say that Anne Frank's death was not a Holocaust. Is this just limp-wristed logic, or does Greggy have a motive for defending the Jews' Holocaust? Make no mistake: that is what he is doing.

I know I’m going out on a limb here, thinking out loud and speculatively on somewhat less than solid ground, but, I think Carolyn touched on a truth, Hadding, when she spoke in the podcast about Greggy wanting the comforts that only an American metropolitan city affords homosexuals like himself such that he cannot side with Hitler or even look into the myth of the Holocaust because of the frightening possibility he might lose his freedom to be "gay and proud of it” that such a metropolitan life affords him.
I think there is a problem with any pro-White homosexual in the pro-White movement -- if he or she hasn't studied Hitler, the Third Reich, and the Holocaust in some serious detail and therefore knows why Hitler sent such people to prison or sent them by force into the military and equally knows as well why there were no gassings, like you and Mr. Faurisson and Carolyn, have pointed out.  Hitler and the Third Reich did not track down and kill or imprison every single homosexual living in Germany, just as he and the Third Reich did not gas 6 million Jews.  He did not want the German people to live in a decadent culture.
I agree with you, Hadding, that Greggy is uneducated and that he cannot possibly represent the pro-White movement as an intellectual simply because he has not done his research.  As best I can understand the historical matter regarding homosexuals, Hitler, and the Third Reich simply did not want public displays of homosexual identity and certainly did not like the brazen flaunting of it.  He did not imprison many Lesbian women because their wombs were fertile, and it was the recalcitrant, professional male homosexual who was the proper target for the Third Reich in terms of retraining, imprisonment, or serving in the military after imprisonment.  Again, Hitler did not want the German people to live in a decadent culture.
Am I wrong here?
The truth of the matter, it seems to me, is that Jews and Communists gave American homosexuals the "right" to be "gay and proud of it." 
In the manner in which I believe Carolyn had been thinking on the podcast, if Greggy might give up this "right," he'd be better able to represent the pro-White movement – so long as he also researched the Holocaust to find the myth behind it as well. 
What does giving up the “right to be gay” entail?  Stop justifying or making excuses for homosexuality as a public identity equal to that of heterosexuals and stop deliberately avoiding and evading intellectual knowledge of the myth of the Holocaust.  Is this too much to ask or require? 
This particular creature comfort politically afforded to people like Greggy in the big metropolitan cities in America is the sacrifice that pro-homosexuals in the movement have to make, I believe, to be able to be viable, respected participants in the pro-White movement, and people like Greggy or Jack Donovan or James O’Meara are incapable of this sort of sacrifice because they want to flaunt their sexual identity in public, and it is out of their inability to make this sacrifice that they evade recognizing or studying the myth of the Holocaust because such evasion provides the cover for their cowardice or their unwillingness to give up flaunting their sexual identity or to simply be more discreet and austere in their public speeches and writings in order to work for a cause higher and greater than the White individual qua queer. 
The flaw I see in my own analysis here, I’ll admit, is simply that my reasoning about this problem comes from, in my opinion, a National Socialist perspective, and such reasoning has no sway in the philosophy of American individualism, which is likely the philosophy that Greggy and company subscribe to when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle in particular and the pro-White movement in general. 
As for American individualism, I think, it too is a myth like the Holocaust.  If it existed, Jewish hegemony wouldn’t be influencing the United States as greatly as it has and if individuals en masse really honored the inalienable rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution we’d be better able to discuss the homosexual problem rather than have homosexuality be legislated and integrated into a viewpoint that includes the dubious, SPLC-approved construct, “hate speech.”  Equal “rights” for homosexuals is part of a Socialist agenda established by Jews, and so I think White people have to choose which political philosophy works best for White people. 
Matt Hale says any political or economic philosophy will do for White people – so long as there are no Jews involved and White people have their own land and are free to choose how to live as a unique people. 
Either way, dealing with the Holocaust myth as well as Jewish hegemony is an absolute necessity.  There’s no getting around this fact.

Stumbled on your book tonight and ended up here somehow. First off your book is execellnt and easy to read. I shall be sharing it. Also, it is so refreshing to hear like minded people speak on the 'Alt Right' and their far out ideas and opinions.
I like how you guys stick to the hard facts, there was no Holocaust and the noble Germans have nothing to feel ashamed of. Bless you, Carolyn.

Welcome, NS Brit. I like that you said my booklet on Auschwitz is easy to read. It is, and I think that's a plus because it still tells the story accurately. It wasn't meant to be the final say in the matter, naturally. Just an opening.

Good discussion with John there, Carolyn. I've started on a transcript here:
John Friend and Carolyn Yeager discuss the recent Greg Johnson vs Andrew Anglin “debate” where the “Holocaust” and Revisionism were discussed. John and Carolyn take Kevin MacDonald and Greggy to the woodshed for their failure to man-up and confront the fraudulent nature of the “holocaust industry“ that the jjews have placed like a millstone, around the necks of Whites  — KATANA.

Well thanks Katana. Please note that I edited the recording John made and took out 4 minutes of dead space, forgetfulness and some mix-ups with my notes on my part. Didn't touch John. So my recording is better, smoother and won't take as long. If you try to use both, you won't have exactly the same thing.  Mine is one hour, 16 minutes.

Well, I've already laid out the rough text for John's version. I take out all the glitches anyhow, so transcript wise it should be about the same. I'll leave a link on my page to your audio in any case. With John, I need to take out some of the six million "you know"s he adds :)

America's problem with the Jews is that you emancipated them. So you have around 6 million of them willing to ID themselves on the census (likely more) and that's enough for them to control the press, University, city real estate, various industries etc.  America and Israel (in a wider sense) are figuratively speaking ONE. It's a disgusting political community this so called Republic. 

So true. It seems that everywhere I look, more than ever. it is Jews doing the talking and running the show. So I guess a million, out of the six million, are actively engaged in TV, movies, think tanks, running for civic and political office, etc. This is an admission that white Europeans cannot compete for control with Jews and NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THEM. This is what Hitler was doing for Germans, and later for Europe. This is how the Third Reich should really be viewed.

But it's not only America's problem, its the same in Europe, Australia, Britain, Canada. Don't you think?

I'd say that the population of Jews in those places is too small for total domination. America is more or less the Pale of Settlement where Jews controlled the Bloodlands of Eastern Europe. 
Hypothetically if if the US split into three states the power excercized by Jews would be diminished. "New New England" would be the place they live For the most part.  . America is like Renassance era Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth on steroids with a Navy.