Holocaust Denial as Strategic Buffoonery

Holocaust Denial exemplifies at once everything that’s wrong with our movement. It frames us as dangerous, cruel, and irrelevant. But more importantly, it betrays a fundamental error in judging the nature of the challenge before us. In the denier’s mind, the challenge is to awaken people to Jewish lies. That’s secondary, at best. Our challenges are to persuade White Americans that they’re a common people with a common fate and to persuade them that we’re their most credible and trustworthy advocates.

What deniers seem to paradoxically understand and forget is how malleable facts are in the hands of an oligarchy that dominates our keystone institutions. Folks don’t have an intuitive understanding of what matters and what does not. They look to their peers and their authorities for context. Herein lies the majority of the power wielded by media and academia. Had it been in their interests, 9/11 could have been swept aside as an unfortunate isolated incident, like the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. Had it been in their interests, “Remember the Knoxville Horror!” could have been a rallying cry for removing Black thugs from White American streets once and for all.

Facts just don’t matter that much. Power matters. Influence matters. One can see this in the instigation of the Iraq War by the Zionist Jews in Washington. These people are getting more and more bold and sloppy, and left a clear paper trail demonstrating that they acted as agents of a foreign government to trick us into a war that’s disastrously against our national interests with falsified documents and a coordinated campaign across our government, our media, and our academic institutions.

In a parallel universe where facts matter in politics, David Frum would be rotting in solitary confinement and Matt Hale would be a free man. Instead, Matt Hale is among the living dead in unthinkable isolation and David Frum is sitting atop millions of dollars, merrily posting articles on his “conservative” site about how great Israel is because gay Jews can parade buck naked on the streets of Toronto. The fact that you could fill a swimming pool with American blood that David Frum is directly and demonstrably responsible for spilling is irrelevant. Of course, to even point this out is immoral and unacceptable, since people like David Frum control the terms of “mainstream” discourse.

Mainstream Republicans Come Out of the Closet
Mainstream Republicans Come Out of the Closet

Sure, the truth is important. But the advocate has a right and a responsibility to carefully select which truths to present to the target audience. Leading with WWII historical trivia, especially WWII historical trivia which has been rendered radioactive in the minds of our target audience, would be inadvisable even if the Holocaust™ was a lie. Even if Elie Wiesel and Abe Foxman issued a joint press release declaring that it was a total fabrication, the sheer irrelevance of the subject would leave a prudent advocate with more pertinent matters to address.

Let's Argue About Dead People!
Let's Argue About Dead People!

Besides. It did happen. The word “Holocaust” is a marketing slogan that should be dismissed as such in favor of “genocide”. But the root issue isn’t whether or not the official version is padded with bullshit. It assuredly is, and has been shown to be time and again. But it’s also been shown that innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed in Nazi Germany for being Jewish. No serious historian denies that assertion. The precise number doesn’t matter. What matters is that the basic assertion is true – that Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews was genocidal. I would certainly believe it was genocidal if it were happening to my people.

The Jewish people are guilty of 20th century genocides and war crimes, too. Hell, they’re still going at it. A quicker and easier way to defuse the Holocaust mythology is to provide historical episodes or examples from the nearest newspaper that destroy the preposterous notion that Jews are a powerless bunch of perpetual victims. In doing so, you force the discourse back into the present, where it belongs.

It’s unacceptable how Western Civilization in general and the German people in particular are being subjected to a campaign of blood libel by the Holocaust hustlers. It’s unacceptable that these hustlers are harassing elderly war veterans with bogus charges. It’s unacceptable that they imprison historians for skeptical inquiry. It’s unacceptable that they keep using it as a pretext to initiate “preemptive” aggression. These are often politically relevant, but only because Jews make them so. And when we engage these issues, there are far more effective ways to do so than to deny the Holocaust.

A Revisionist Conference
A Revisionist Conference

The budding activist would do well to ask what quantifiable objective Holocaust Denial ever achieved for our people or press a Denier to explain how it could accomplish anything. He won’t be able to answer you, because Denial is about cryptkeeping. A stagnant movement gathers a lot of undesirables, and chief among them are the cryptkeepers, men who live entirely in a different time and place than the present. Most of them have barely concealed contempt for the contemporary White Americans they pretend to be advocates for. Their hearts and minds are in Nazi Germany, or the antebellum South, or even a mythical Hyperborea of Aryan demigods.

Our heritage and our forefathers are to be honored. But they’re to be honored by defending their legacy and their progeny – not by obsessively perceiving everything in the present as avatars of their bygone times and places. It’s the difference between a man who honors the traditions of his forebears and those sad situations where senile old ladies sleep beside their dead husband for months because they can’t bear to let go.

Occidental Dissent is very much a “Wild West” of pro-Western discussion. As Gregory Hood suggests, there’s a delicate balance between being an activist and an intellectual, a fine line that OD is constantly treading. That risible video that denies the Holocaust, idolizes Hitler, and condemns Christianity can only serve to alienate our target audience. But I don’t think the kind of people who deny the Holocaust care. The days that this movement will be able to carry both anti-American cryptkeepers and White American advocates are numbered. I hate being divisive, but the two factions only superficially appear to share the same goals and the hateful bile they’re incessantly spitting up against Christians can only be tolerated for so long.

26 Comments

  1. It’s monster identification.

    Thanks to the internet, a lot of average people are becoming aware of the Jews’ power and influence in the world. The drastic penalties levied against people who question or express doubt about a historical event is a real eye-opener for many people. Whatever the goals of revisionist scholars, and I’m sure they vary, the absurdity of the taboo is often the missing piece of the puzzle of what’s wrong in the world. It isn’t WN in and of itself but it is a worthwhile part of a process of understanding why things are like they are.

    It has taken many people years to get past purely entertainment and business uses of the internet. The days when “holo deniers” instantly lost all credibility are waning fast.

    Take the Tea Partiers. The older ones who need their children to show them how to use a computer are likely still solid GOPers who’d be aghast at holo-denial. Most are young and know all about the holo-fraud. Five years ago they didn’t. I guarantee you that their awareness of the issue played a part in their rush to activism. It explained why their people are treated like shit by “their” own government. The older, dwindling crowd still have their ‘Love it or Leave it’ stickers.

    Calling revisionism (and all that it entails) strategic buffoonery reminds me of the man at the Patent Office in the 19th century who recommended closing it down because everything had already been invented.

  2. Alfred,
    I assert that it’s a non-starter even if you’re completely correct about its fraudulence and the Internet’s ability to dissolve the taboo. I say this with confidence because so many of the most prominent Holocaust Deniers and Revisionists are either indifferent to or even hostile toward our racial preservation. Furthermore, I believe that many of the ones who do advocate racial preservation are either racial preservationists who got into it because they believe that revisionism is going to lead to some kind of great awakening or hucksters who are keeping in good graces with a key target market for their history books.

    It’s not so much that I’m wary of detonating the taboo strapped to the issue – though that should factor in tactically for advocates (not historians). It’s that I’m calling “bullshit” on the supposed awakening brought about by revising one’s understanding of this historical episode.

  3. “He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” – Sir William Drummond

    The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand fold. ~Aristotle

    Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. ~Thomas Jefferson

    When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. ~Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

    “It sounds not only disagreeable but also paradoxical, yet it must nevertheless be said that anyone who is to be really free and happy in love must have surmounted his respect for women and have come to terms with the idea of incest with his mother or sister.”
    — Sigmund Freud

    I sure would not want a Judeo-Christians to marry my daughter.

  4. Robert,

    If you’ve got something to say, come out and say it. There’s no need to drag a bunch of dead people into this.

    I never told anybody to be dishonest and I never suggested that I’m dishonest. The arts of advocacy and persuasion do indeed involve prioritizing your presentation of the truth. Politics is courtship, and there are things a perfectly honest and open man needn’t delve into on the first date. Thomas Jefferson didn’t let politics interfere with his spirit of inquiry, but he did keep his Jefferson Bible to himself until after he was dead…because it would have destroyed his ability to continue doing important work as a statesman.

    I’m still trying to figure out why you transitioned to raving about incest and people marrying your daughter at the end of that tirade…

  5. I reckon he did it to show the difference between the “Judeo” and the “Christian.”

    Regardless, I understand the need to remain palatable. It’s just very hard to take. How can a society fallen into total baseness in the grovelling endeavor to be palatable to everyone be lead from the darkness by people who… endeavor to remain palatable? I CAN”T TAKE IT! But I understand. It kills me, but I understand.

  6. The holoco$t only happened for those that feed off of others. Or are in severe denial of reality.

  7. Matt Parrott is an ass. He starts of saying that facts don’t matter. Well in that case we might as well hang it up.

    Facts do matter with the rational minority.

    Then he follows up with a shitload of rhetorical mush.

    “Besides. It did happen. […] But it’s also been shown that innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed in Nazi Germany for being Jewish. No serious historian denies that assertion. The precise number doesn’t matter. What matters is that the basic assertion is true – that Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews was genocidal. I would certainly believe it was genocidal if it were happening to my people.”

    What is a “serious historian”? Professor Faurisson is not an historian per se but was a very respected scholar in France before he started publicly questioning the gas-chamber story. What about Joel Hayward? He’s an historian and he found out what happens when an historian does not toe the party line.

    What is “it” that “did happen”? That some Jews were “killed in Nazi Germany for being Jewish.” There were 35. That is number of documented deaths in Kristallnacht. Those 35 were apparently killed for being Jews, but not by the German Government. Thereafter some Jews were shot on the Eastern Front as part of the anti-guerrilla campaign but it is ridiculous to portray that as an attempt to wipe out the Jewish race.

    All relevant documents of the Third Reich refer to what was being done with the Jews as deportation, with the intended destination first being Madagascar, then as circumstances changed, some Jewish homeland in the east. That was the Final Solution, deportation. You can call that genocidal if you want, but it isn’t really honest.

  8. Hadding,

    I said that facts don’t matter that much. I didn’t say they “don’t matter”. Investing precious time and resources in exploring this issue is suboptimal for White Advocates. Determining whether the truth here is X, Y, or Z won’t alter our political circumstances. Now, historians and hobbyists are a different matter, and they have different goals. But they shouldn’t pretend that they’re doing advocacy work when they’re doing so.

    I spoke very broadly, without naming a specific number, because I didn’t want to debate the facts. I’m not a historian and don’t claim to have any special knowledge on the subject. The article is about the strategic advisability of focusing on this historical episode. But you’re an Internet Nazi. Giving a shit about Nazism is your bag. We have different goals.

    Just so you know, I’m basing my determination on the assertions of David Irving, who asserts that there was widespread “innocenticide” on the Eastern Front but disputes the absurdly high numbers and the assertion that it was more widely known than it probably was. He’s an outspoken Germanophile who’s spent a lifetime buried in the source documents and who has spent hard time for his beliefs. I trust his judgment.

  9. P: “But more importantly, it betrays a fundamental error in judging the nature of the challenge before us. In the denier’s mind, the challenge is to awaken people to Jewish lies. That’s secondary, at best. Our challenges are to persuade White Americans that they’re a common people with a common fate and to persuade them that we’re their most credible and trustworthy advocates.”

    And with common European ancestry.

    This is a very good point. Fostering a racial consciousness among European Americans (whites) is much more important than scoring points against the Jews.

  10. “I’m not a historian and don’t claim to have any special knowledge on the subject. The article is about the strategic advisability of focusing on this historical episode. But you’re an Internet Nazi. Giving a shit about Nazism is your bag. We have different goals. Just so you know, I’m basing my determination on the assertions of David Irving….”

    You continue to confirm your asininity. it’s wonderful, how you use the Jews’ propaganda-terms like “Holocaust DENIAL” and “Nazi.” If you don’t claim any special knowledge then shut the hell up.

    David Irving is not a valid touchstone on this matter. In 1988 he came out and endorsed the finding that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and saw the sky cave in on him. Thereafter he has been looking for ways to fend off the odious label Holocaust Denier by saying, Well, it didn’t happen at Auschwitz but it did happen at the Aktion Reinhardt camps! He says this based on very slender evidence and with unseemly eagerness, and for all-too-obvious reasons.

    I could agree that historical revisionism is not the first thing to discuss with the man on the street, but it is a subject that will come up sooner or later, unless you are going to foreswear any realistic discussion of the Jews. The Holocaust is an inevitable topic of discussion. We don’t discuss it just because we like it. The nature of anti-racist propaganda and war-propaganda since World War II forces this discussion. Basically you are “playing ostrich.”

    I don’t recommend that anybody begin his pitch to the neophyte with a discussion of the Holohoax, but if you swear off discussing it you are going to be helpless when it’s thrown in your face, as it inevitably will be.

  11. I should add, more importantly, that you will be morally crippled in a discussion if you do not have your mind right about the Jews’ lies.

    Matt Parrott has the thought “Poor Jews!” lurking in his head, and he needs to exorcise that thought.

  12. Hadding,

    If they do throw the Holocaust up, there are more intelligent responses than hugging the tar baby of historical esoterica. For instance, one can name off several other tragedies of similar scope and similar vintage to put it in perspective. One can name off contemporary Israeli and Jewish acts of aggression to strip them of their cultivated image of perpetual victimization. One can note that the US liberated the camps, and ask what we as Americans have to answer for.

    When you set the number killed at 35, that’s fairly described as denying the event altogether, not merely revising it. I didn’t know that the term “nazi” was offensive to you and will call you whatever you prefer to be called. But whatever label you wish to be called, you’re still affiliated with the “national socialist” tradition. You’re still partial to a long-deceased regime from a foreign country. It’s still cryptkeeping.

    Claiming that our opponents will make it relevant is a fig leaf over a historian’s interest in the awkward and irrelevant episode. It’s a way to pretend that it’s relevant for a contemporary White American advocate. I don’t believe it is.

    The thought that’s lurking around in my head lately is that anti-Semitic obsessives are obstacles to mounting a serious challenge to Jewish power.

  13. Hadding,

    The comment you just made on the YouTube video corroborates my point. You think it’s appropriate to ridicule a public advocate in public while remaining anonymous for failing to play the Kevin Baconstein game to your liking.

    Thanks for having the courage to say what everybody basically knows! Even Black stand-up comics (e.g. Chris Rock) talk about Negro criminality, so that was really quite bold of you to proclaim publicly what every Hannity and Limbaugh listener already knows. Media bias? Yeah they know that too. Hannity and Limbaugh mention that all the time, with the insinuation that they are not part of it. The Indianapolis Star is owned by Gannett, and the CEO of Gannett is Craig A. DUBOW. Jew?

    This is because you’re a rabid monomaniac. The fact that you’re rabid about Jews is beside the point. Rabies is rabies.

  14. “I don’t recommend that anybody begin his pitch to the neophyte with a discussion of the Holohoax”.

    Isn’t that precisely what you’re doing?

  15. “It’s a way to pretend that it’s relevant for a contemporary White American advocate. I don’t believe it is.”

    The Jews will let you know that it is relevant. In case you missed it, the Jews have been doing that since World War II.

  16. Jimmy Marr sez: “Isn’t that precisely what you’re doing?”

    Are you implying that Dilbert here is a neophyte? He does come across that way, but he raised the issue of the Holohoax himself. I would be remiss if I did not respond with a dose of wisdom and reality.

  17. Matt Parrott sez: “When you set the number killed at 35, that’s fairly described as denying the event altogether, not merely revising it.”

    That is the number of documented deaths from Kristallnacht. The inflated figure that the Jews publicize, 90, is not documented.

    I am not aware of any other instances of Jews being killed in the Third Reich simply because they were Jews.

    There were retaliation executions on the Eastern Front for the purpose of combating guerrilla activity, but that is a whole different matter.

  18. Matt Parrott sez: “You think it’s appropriate to ridicule a public advocate….”

    What you are advocating is prosaic. It’s not special. Lots of people say those things under their real names, because everybody already knows.

    When you combine that with denigrating people that are willing to tackle the thorny issue of the Holohoax, you make yourself hardly more than a dittohead. Dittos, Rush!

    I wouldn’t have a negative thing to say about you if you weren’t arguing that everybody should be as limited as you.

    Why does it bother you that some people are willing to discuss a matter that you are not? You could just stay silent about it, but you feel the need to attack them. This shows that you do not have your mind right.

  19. Hadding,

    I was prompted to write the piece by a YouTube video designed to target neophytes with that message. As I’ve stated several times, folks are welcome to talk about whatever they want. But they shouldn’t pretend that their historical pursuits are useful activism.

    I explicitly called for White Americans to think of themselves as a people and act as a people. None of the neocons you named off do this. Virtually nobody does that. Had Jews been even remotely relevant to the issue, I would have named them without hesitation. This isn’t about whether or not to discuss Jewish power. I discuss it when and where it’s relevant, without hesitation. I’m all for taking on the Jews, but only when Jews are relevant to the topic and when the topic is relevant to the contemporary struggle.

  20. Matt,

    Hadding is not an “Internet nazi.” He has a long history of real world activism and many of us know his real name.

    If I recall correctly, he used to help Pierce write his ADV broadcasts.

    Eventually, you are going to have to reconcile yourself with the fact that many (perhaps even the majority of) serious, long-term WNs are essentially National Socialists in spirit, even if they believe that it has been exhausted as a political vehicle. They realise that it was Europe, not Germany, that was defeated in 1945.

    Many of them, who publicly wear the garb of Southern Populist or Constitutionalist/Republican, are swift to join in singing the Horst Wessel Lied when they know that they are among their own and not being filmed. I have witnessed this phenomenon more than once.

    I’m not sure that the “cryptkeeping” of which you speak is necessarily the massive obstacle to mainstream success that you believe it to be. The Radical Left was able to influence mainstream American rhetoric despite having a nucleus of hardcore reds at the center. If they had put their entire ideology on the table at once, the result would have been colossal failure, but they succeeded through incrementalism; they allowed the frog to get very comfortable in the water before the temperature in the pot was slowly raised.

    Gus Hall once famously proclaimed that there was no more need for the CPUSA, since its primary objectives had been achieved without firing a shot.

  21. Good comment, Mr Campbell. You wisely chose an example that is analogous to, but completely separate from the issue of White Nationalism.

    The other topic is too close to the heart for some of us to remain cool-headed and detached about.

    Its critical for us to find ways of discussing strategy, without imperiling our primary goal of racial camaraderie.

    Yours is a good example. Thanks.

  22. Matt Parrott sez: “But they shouldn’t pretend that their historical pursuits are useful activism.”

    Truth is fundamental. If you don’t get that, you are very lost.

    Matt Parrott sez: ” None of the neocons you named off do this. Virtually nobody does that.”

    I don’t remember saying anything here about neocons.

    Robert Campbell sez: “If I recall correctly, he used to help Pierce write his ADV broadcasts.”

    I wrote some that Kevin Strom used but I can’t say that I helped Dr. Pierce with any that he recorded; the most I can say is that he got the theme for one from a letter that I wrote. I was invited in 2000 to join the national office staff and he had mentioned in the Bulletin that he was looking for help with ADV, but that was bad timing for me and I couldn’t go. There is an oblique reference to me in The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds. I happened to be there the last few days of Griffin’s visit.

  23. There are really two questions here.

    (1) Do people care about facts?

    (2) Do people care about the past?

    The answer, broadly speaking, is: NO

    People are very much creatures of the present. They care about the here and now. They also care about their pocketbooks. As one of my friends once put it: ” If it doesn’t involve beer, pizza or pussy, forget it”. People can see that Jews are very powerful and that displeasing them can get you into big trouble. Rick Sanchez is a good example. Holocaust Denial is dangerous – and people can sense that. So Holocaust Denial will never get anywhere with the man-in-the-street. Never. Forget it.

    This is not to say that intelligent people are not reading Holocaust Denial on the computer and behind the scenes. They are. Word is getting around. Did not ex-president Carter remark that “the final word has yet to be written on the Holocaust”? Now logically, Holocaust Denial, should tell people everything – if they could think. But they can’t. As I put it in my essay “The Mother of All Lies”, published on the old Ziopedia/The Rebel web site, “If the Holocaust is a lie, then the Protocols of Zion are true. The Jews who sold you the ‘gas chamber’ hoax are the same Jews who sold you the ideas of racial equality, feminism, open borders and One World. Are these Jewish lies just like the ‘gas chamber’ hoax”? So you see, the implications of the story are great – and it really isn’t hard to figure it out. So the hoax has enormous significance – but it will never sell because it is too frightening for the average individual to stomach.

    If whites ever wake up, it will be because of the collapse of the economy (not far off) and racial warfare when the hispanic invasion becomes intolerable. Holocaust Denial will merely be a footnote in all this.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Linkage is Good for You: Dare to Dare Edition
  2. RE: VNN Roast | Fair and Delightsome

Comments are closed.