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.
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.
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.
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.
Some excellent material broadcast by Ezra Pound on March 15, 1942:
Source: http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pound/radio.htm
The name “Jost Turner” rings a bell. Didn’t you post something about him once? It may have been while we were at Amren.
As Matt said, OD is the “Wild West” of WN sites. There isn’t a party line here. I think that is the greatest strength of this website in comparison with others. The discussions here are more lively than almost anywhere else.
More Pound from same source:
Hunter,
Yes, I have posted several essays by Jost Turner here in the past.
Jost was a mystic NS in California active in the 1970’s. I know people that knew him and they continue to hold him in high regard.
Andrew,
Jost was active until the late 90s, when he died.
He had a commune in Nevada county where he tried to implement his ideas, with mixed success.
As a fellow Odinist, you may enjoy his poem on Thor, which I posted here a while back:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/02/19/mighty-thor-speaks-to-us-by-jost-turner/
Matt,
First off, I agree with the basic premise of your article that our primary focus is on promoting our interests and undermining our enemy’s and therefore we shouldn’t be caught up on such a divisive issue as the Holocaust. But at the same time, some things need to be set straight.
This here is basically my two cents on the big H:
In a nutshell, NS Germany practiced ethnic cleansing NOT genocide. EC and genocide are almost always conflated as one and the same when in fact they are not. Ethnic cleansing is simply the removal (voluntarily or not) of a group of people to some other locale. We already (or should) know what constitutes genocide, so I won’t expound upon that here. Simply put, the German plans were geared toward mass >>expulsion<< of the Jews not extermination.
Now, did Jews die during WWII? Absolutely. Were some killed by some uniformed NS people in cold blood? Almost certainly. Was there a Holocaust?
Yes, but not the one we immediately think about. The one the Jews, media, governments, acedemics, and the majority of people puport to have happened (in all of its various forms) is fiction. The one that did happen, happened about ten years earlier…in what is present day Ukraine. The victims were Europeans and the perpetrators were (by and large) Jews. It is known as the Holodomor.
As for the emaciated people we see in all of those pictures, the explanation for this is roughly twofold.
Granted, the Germans weren't running a bed & breakfast at all of those camps, but they didn't starve the people there much less have gas chambers. The starvation that occured was directly related to Allied bombing of supply depots and routes. Naturally, the Germans had to ration their supplies and so less ended up going to the camps.
But the big killer of people (not just Jews) in the camps was something else, something well-documented but conveniently over-looked or hidden. Ever notice that all those people whom we see smiling upon their liberation are by and large rather healthy, but then we see a few emaciated individuals and piles of skin & bone corpses? And why are most of their heads shaved? Answer: de-lousing to prevent the spread of typhus. Once the war started getting worse for Germany, along with the increasing scarcity of supplies, the spread of typhus through these camps increased dramatically.
But since you can't get a lot of extortion from lice, much less use them to enslave European man by chaining him in guilt, well…you get the picture.
Whatever one’s views of Jewish misfortunes during WW2, they don’t have much place in any effort to enlighten the neighbors about current threats to our people. Holocaust denial and monologues on centuries of Jewish perfidy are as relevant to the average White as the historical grievances of Black slaves and Sioux warriors. You may as well bore your listeners with talk about the spice traders of Venice or the ’54 Buick, however worthy those topics might be to the informed.
Talk to people about what Jews and their toadies are doing today. There’s enough evil there to convict them, without confusing matters by profaning a subject that the masses have been taught is sacred. You can destroy the temples after you’re captured the castles.
Correction: “…you’ve captured the castles”.
Actually the reason that revisionism is so important has been kind of missed in so far as people might say ‘Oh it doesn’t matter to people’ and whether six million jews died in gas chambers during the course of World War II shouldn’t, but the fact is that it does. Although it is true to say that most people know very little about the whole topic: they will automatically defend jews with ‘the holocaust’. If you want to be criticise jews you have to address ‘the holocaust’: I know some might think this is not true, but it is.
People do notice jews are a problem, but they just don’t speak about it very much (even if they don’t merely suggest to them that they look at the credits of their favourite television series and look for obviously jewish names). In essence they often believe they are alone in their views and they aren’t attracted to anti-Semitism in general, because of the loons purporting assorted nonsenses within it (particularly ‘jews did 9/11’ crowd and ‘Protocols of Zion’ believers let alone the ‘Judeo-Masonic thesis’ advocates. Rational anti-Semitism tends to be rather liked in my experience as it offers people a non-conspiratorial way to understand what is going on and requires no declaration of absolute faith, but rather rests on the weight of evidence and on personal experience.
Claiming that ‘holocaust denial’ is what is wrong with ‘WN’ is absurd in and of itself, because it fundamentally denies the basic problem is not so much what ‘holocaust denial’ has to say, but rather how it says it. I’ve said this before on revisionist forums in so far as producing a wholly negative case won’t win adherents generally speaking, but rather to counter the ‘holocaust’ as a defense mechanism one needs to do several things:
Firstly look to write alternative narrative histories telling the story of the period from a rational nationalist viewpoint, while simply adding in what happened to the jews if you concur with Revisionist scholarship.
Secondly make fun of the ‘holocaust’ advocates claims (and they are very easy to do that with) and make people laugh at the ‘holocaust’.
Thirdly introduce the ‘unknown holocausts’ into the discussion more to show that although the supposed ‘holocaust’ of the jews is what everyone is taught about: there are actual documented ‘holocausts’ that simply get no air time what-so-ever in schools.
All three of these very basic tactics have worked very well for me and my wife in our work with the Aryan/European middle and working class poor (not the contradiction in terms it might seem) in NYC and as I’ve said numerous times it is only when you get out among the folk and scratch the surface do you realise just how much they fundamentally agree with what the ‘radical right’ has to say, but merely need to feel it is safe for them to be associated with it passively or actively. Mouthing off in essays/articles on the web means nothing unless you’ve actually been out there doing it.
Incidentally another thing that needs to be done more and can be done very easily is equating jews and Muslims as a twin-danger to America by in effect pointing out that both of them have a long history of co-existence, co-operation and intellectual cross-polination. You can also point out that the Ottoman Empire; the subject of much anti-Islamist propaganda, was very clearly supported by jews (for example the official language of the Imperial Customs Service was Hebrew [!]).
Just some thoughts from an anti-Semite.
Karl Radl wrote: Secondly make fun of the ‘holocaust’ advocates claims (and they are very easy to do that with) and make people laugh at the ‘holocaust’.
This works and if used properly and intelligently can break the ice if the holocaust is being used against you by a fellow White. Another one that works is appealing to Americans idea of free speech. Telling them that people are put in prison in Europe for investigating the holocaust puts a bad taste in their mouth. They have no comeback for that as most Americans respect free thought and speech.
I have used this on my own family with success.
I dont really care about the topic but as Radl points out, it WILL be brought up when you talk about issues regarding race and Jews.
“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.”
In fact, it is the root issue. You don’t need to say much more to be called a holocaust denier.
The phrase “holocaust denier” is dishonest, just like “antisemite”. If someone disputes the 6 million figure, or some other point, it isn’t the same as saying that nothing happened.
“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.”
It’s important to know the order of magnitude, how it happened, and the motivations of the Germans. I think the Jews were targeted by the Nazis mainly because of their political behavior, not just “for being Jewish”.
If we think it is wrong to harm the whole community because of the behavior of a minority, how is it morally acceptable to declare war on Germany, knowing it will result in millions of deaths? The official story is that Chamberlain was despicable for trying to avoid war. As if the death of a few million non-Jews didn’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 official basic assertion is that the Germans tried to kill all the Jews, using extermination camps. The idea of an extermination camp is counter-intuitive, because you don’t have to make people stay in a camp in order to kill them.
The word genocide is ambiguous. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word, said it meant killing a nation, not necessarily killing people. For example, trying to assimilate the Jews by force has been described as a genocidal policy. The word holocaust also sounds absurd to me, as it is a reference to religious sacrifice. They should just say mass murder, if that is what they mean.
Making the point that people are languishing in prison for merely daring to question specific details of the standard narrative is one relatively innocuous way of introducing the topic if you absolutely feel you must. It depends on the context of the conversation how you do it (obviously you don’t just shake someone by shoulders, “Did you know…”), but you’ll rarely get disagreement that it’s a terrible injustice. Rather than then go on to make the case for “why it’s a lie!” I think it’s more profitable to point out that this is done because the holocaust is used as a tool to silence dissent on a wide range of topics (Israel, the Israel Lobby, Jewish influence etc.), a tool whose value they fear will diminish in the event that the extent of suffering comes to be viewed skeptically, which to your eyes, of course, is prima facie evidence that they have “something to hide,” whatever that might be.
Or if you catch a survivor lamenting his imprisonment, you can mock him with, “Hey, see any wolves?”, which opens up the opportunity to make the point that Jews lie so routinely about the nature of the horrors they suffered it only spurs you to question events further.
All that said, (a) I think it’s a poor investment of time and certainly a case of misplaced priorities, and (b) personally, I’m still not really sure just what to believe.
WNs lie too, you know. Consider that “Israel Cohen” quote fabricated by Eustace Mullins. What in the world? That doesn’t sit well with me at all. So when Robert Faurisson churlishly delivers an ultimatum to Mark Weber to affirm that there definitely were no gas chambers I get a little uneasy. You don’t do that if you’re sure of yourself.
Enemies of the German nation (including Jews) were sent to KZs, and the Einsatzgruppen did root out and destroy many of the Communist partisans on the Eastern Front, most of whom were Jewish. That is the extent of “the holocaust”
Faurisson even disputes that that occurred — the only revisionist to do so to my knowledge. That too contributes to my uneasiness about him. He’s sacrificed a lot and invested a great deal of himself in this endeavor, so it’s understandable he’s protective. But the moment he does so he starts to depart from objective inquiry into history. Whether he likes it or not it still is a sensitive subject and his desperation does not inspire confidence.
In sum, holo-related points have their place in advancing the case for racialism, though not in the way holo revs usually think. But for me a dogged insistence that it absolutely did not happen is stupid and of such extremely limited value (if it even has any) that I would give it a wide berth.
Actually, my own experience and empirical evidence, over the past decade and a half or so indicate that there is much more merit to challenging Holocaust dogma than Mr. Parrott seems to believe. In fact, I have found that this topic is, in certain circles of course, far more openly received – if for no other reason than the sheer curiosity of it all – than other examples of blatant, Jewish flim-flammery and the like. For instance, folks with a strong interest in history are(once they get over their initial unease or fear) often fascinated just by the fact that Holocaust revisionism exists. Many have never heard of these challenges, and when substantial evidence or supporting info is provided, I have been pleasantly surprised by how inquisitive and yes, receptive, many have been. Sure, some never dare go beyond a little historical “poking around.” But it plants a seed of doubt, and as far as I’m concerned, when dealing with the J-question, it is that first seed of doubt that is the toughest thing to establish in some, but is also the key to all ultimate wisdom on the topic(not surprisingly).
Granted, I wouldn’t broach this topic with everyone I wished to discuss WN matters with – but in some cases, it is a powerful and indeed, useful tool, and I believe it is unnecessary to toss it aside because it is, in many ways, still a sensitive and yes, unpleasant topic to dissect and digest.
Beyond that, “Armor” has made many great related points, I believe.
Silver,
Good point regarding Revisionism as an ice breaker, particularly on campus.
I gave a speech in my “Public Communication” (Rhetoric) course several years ago, in which I focused on the injustice perpetrated against Ernst Zündel.
During that period, Zündel was being held in prison in Canada on “secret evidence” after being kidnapped and deported from his home in Tn.
I was very careful in how I presented the issue, and I didn’t mention the Holocaust once. I framed Ernst as a pacifist, an animal lover, and a cancer sufferer who was imprisoned as a result of his unwavering commitment to truth.
By the end of my speech, several of the liberal women in the audience were visibly upset. I coaxed a number of the students into signing a petition to the Canadian government in support of Ernst Zündel. The Professor gave me an A and pulled me aside to ask more questions.
Of course, these people were probably horrified when they went home and googled “Ernst Zündel,” but at least I got them to acknowledge that a terrible injustice was being perpetrated. Perhaps one or two of them gave Zündel’s material a fair hearing. I’d like to think so.
Thank you Robert Campbell for posting the writings/experiences of Jost Turner.
Jost Turner was a great man and he was American. I knew him from his NS Kindred writings, exchanged many beautiful letters from him and spoke once on the phone to Jost.
I was very saddened to hear of his death and it did not sound natural to me.
His wife wrote me a very nice letter and his daughter posted once to Stormfront – but that’s all I have heard of this great man’s family since he passed on.
Jost believed in reincarnation, so perhaps he is now with us in the form of a very special teen ager.
Thanks again Robert and I encourage all here to get to know Jost Turner – his life and his writings.
And I made this video posted today on Occidental Dissent on Jost Turner’s very interesting comments about THE HOLOCAUST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGu6fHAKIXo&feature=related
Jost sees the 6 MILLION GASSED JEWS HOLOCAUST as a continuation of Jewish Religious Myths being forced on White Indo European People – same as the forced conversion of White Europeans to Judeo Christianity.
In this manner, science and honest historical revisionism have no real power to dispel THE HOLOCAUST, the same as science and honest history can not reach the true believers who BELIEVE that the Jewish religious myths of the Old Testament Bible are the 1 absolute truth.
Ever see that movie the Ten Commandments where Moses played by Charleton Heston has God part the Red Sea and bring down a pillar of fire against the Evil Egyptians (who were not God’s chosen people, like Germans in WW II)?
Anybody think that Jewish fairy tale from Exodus is honest, scientific history?
It’s the same with the 6 Million Hoax.
“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.”
This is an excellent piece. But the situation is complex.
Again your goal is to persuade Westerns that they are a common people with a common fate. To some extent this means defending the image of the West and defending Western advocates. Which means bearing witness to those who lie and defame. And outing the lies.
The point is to remember that the latter is a means for the former. And that those who can not distinguish the too are worthless. Since without the former you are nothing.
edit: two
Jack,
I thought the video was well done, and I agree with your general analysis of the situation — “Bolshevism: From Moses to Wiesel”
I did not get a chance to know Jost personally. He was slightly before my time.
About ten years ago, I had an e-mail exchange with his widow, Teffy, and she said that there is a lot of unpublished writing by Jost in her possession.
I did my best to get her to send it to me, but I had no luck. I also tried to contact his daughter, but I was unsuccessful.
I am always eager to learn anything I can about Jost Turner. Faustus over at WNN knew him to some extent. I need to get on Skype and pick his brain on that subject.
Matt Parrott:
Facts just don’t matter that much. Power matters. Influence matters.
…
I’m actually a giant reptilian from outer space…
Jungleboots92 says:
Matt Parrott,?A Reptile and a Giant? Wow… that’s bad and a little embarrassing.
You cannot diminish Matt Parrott’s power and influence. Matt Parrott cannot be embarrassed, because he is a giant reptilian from outer space, and because facts do not matter to him.
Considering that people are put into prison if they suggest that facts might matter, Matt Parrott certainly has a politically sensible outlook. He will probably be elected to office.
As for Jungleboots92, the conspiracy theorists will reprint his words, probably without proper attribution, because conspiracy theorists are not respectable historians. Considering that Jungleboots92 is a pseudonym, I assume he won’t object.
Robert,
I would be happy to share my contact with Jost Turner – a very kind and noble man who took so much time to write to me and answer my personal questions.
He was like a father to me.
God bless.
I would be happy to skype.
E-mail me and I will give you my skype.
Rather than a frontal assault on the holocaust, which is at present irretrievably embedded in the minds of most Whites, I recommend chipping away at certain branches, that can easily be proved false. Some here insist that the holocaust story must be uprooted in it’s entirety, but I don’t think so. If the Germans had killed ten million Jews, would that make our right to our own country any less valid? Why then make our cause dependent on such a hard sell as holocaust revisionism?
In America, historical criticism of the holocaust story has value for only as a wedge to bring discredit to the Jews, by showing that they are lying about us Americans. There are, as I said, relatively minor libels against us that can be easily challenged. They still stand only because nobody bothers to slap them down. In particular, I’m thinking of the accusation that America didn’t let a ship with about 900 Jewish refugees aboard discharge its cargo in 1939, and the claim that we didn’t care enough to bomb Auschwitz and thereby save all those people. I won’t lay out the complete rebuttals, but according to the British Jewish historian Martin Gilbert, out of 280,000 German Jewish refugees, the U.S. took in 240,000. And anyone familiar with the history of the 8th Air Force who looks up Auschwitz on a map can easily see why they never tried to bomb it. Even without a map, the idea that bombers could have prevented anything is absurd. These two points are minor really, but they are slanders against Americans, easily disproved, and you don’t have to be anti-Semitic to agree. They may not be touchdowns, but they’re easy field goals, and a win is a win. No doubt there are many other holocaust fables that a little thought can demolish.
As an outsider to WN, who might in some ways represent sort of an average uneducated dumbass point of view, I gotta say I agree 200% (I said I was uneducated) with Matt’s post. Perhaps my perspective won’t be welcome here, but here it is, for what it’s worth:
Holocaust Denial turns average people off like few other things. When most people hear “the holocaust didn’t happen” they immediately see the person saying it as, well, to be blunt, a sick fucker who gets off on saying outrageous things that are intentionally painful to people. It comes across as borderline sociopathic.
Also, thinking and talking about the holocaust a lot comes across the same way as being really really into serial killers or “faces of death” movies. It’s the sign of an unpleasant person. Combine this unpleasantness with the geeky discussion of trivial historical minutiae and you present a public image of yourself as a pimply nerd who is obsessed with piles of corpses.
I’ve seen cases where a reasonably well-versed “white nationalist” makes it onto some mainstream media stage or another and is making a pretty good argument for why white people should argue for their own interests as white people, and then their opponents will bring up the issue of holocaust denial. You can feel the air get sucked right out of the room as they sputter about the “holohoax.” Any defense just digs the hole deeper. All gains are lost in that moment.
The last thing I’ll add is that I don’t understand why some WNs (I realize this is probably a minority of WNs) will invest a lot of energy into denying the holocaust and then, in the next breath, turn around and call for exterminating the jews. Amusing, but also weird and pointless.
Folks are thrown into prison for discussing what? Cui bono from silence on certain matters?
Remaining silent is what jews want.
Retaining power is what Jews want. Worrying about “what Jews want” is a classic example of the kind of reactionary mindset that can set in on a man who is a bit too fixated on the JQ. The appropriate perspective is one that that engages the contemporary political surface area, not one that cares what the jews want. The real threat to this alien oligarchy won’t come in the form of some “excalibur fact” that awakens the masses. It will come in the form of raising up or rehabilitating an oligarchy capable of achieving the restoration.
We need more revisionism about the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement.
“Robert Reis,
It’s critical in determining whether they’re White Advocates or historians, which is at the crux of this debate. Marrying and reproducing with a non-White is the ultimate act of indifference to our fate as a people. I don’t begrudge Whites who “go cosmic”, but it becomes relevant when people assert that these people and their work deserve a prominent status in our racialist movement.”
The “people” who are “aserting that these people and their work deserve a prominent status in our racialist movement?”
This is the problem, right here. Holocaust revisionism is an academic endeavor. Period. The “people” you are speaking of are persons who have CO-OPTED the academic work of a relative few men who never claimed to be racialist in the first place. Moreover, almost all of the “revisionist” cited by WN’s are NOT the people who have done the historical work. All of these Utube videos and other bullshit is not the historical work anyhow, it is only for what has become of so many WN since forum posting replaced well written articles and books by intelligent men.
Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz and a few others are the real Holocaust scholars, but no one much mentions them. Instead we are to gawk at some Utube video aimed at morons who think that is “the stuff.”
Faurisson and Butz, Rassiner, and those original guys never said anything about being white nationalist, they are/were only interested in an historical period. Irving is not a Holocaust scholar, he is a biographer. So it is irrelevant one way or the other with him concerning him and whether or not he is a WN. Zundel is no original researcher on the subject. Ditto so many others that I see cited on forums. They only use the work of others who are not interested in WN.
Too many people are not interested in the Holocaust enough to actually read real work on it, they only want more “Jew Jew Jew!” fodder that they can get in 25 words or less and 10 minute show and tell videos. So yes, they need to just drop it.
Now, if you are really interested in, and are willing to take at least about a year to get a command of the subject to where you can talk about it with some depth, and you are not known as a kook and have a reputation as an intelligent person who has a wide range of interests in and knows other subjects that are not considered fringe (a status that automatically disqualifies 95 percent of people in the movement), then yes, you can talk about and even persuade normal, everyday people about some facts concerning the Holocaust. I have no trouble talking about it and have persuaded people to rethink what “everybody knows.” You can, too, if you do it right.
“We need more revisionism about the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement.”
Yes, I agree. I am interested in learning more about the first two. I don’t know much about books on these subjects, however. I would like to have information on books and historians pre about 1950. I know there was a “school” called the Dunning school, of some historians. And I know Clyde Wilson listed a number of books on Southern antebellum History. If you know of or want to discuss what you have read I would appreciate it.
“Holocaust Denial turns average people off like few other things. When most people hear “the holocaust didn’t happen” they immediately see the person saying it as, well, to be blunt, a sick fucker who gets off on saying outrageous things that are intentionally painful to people. It comes across as borderline sociopathic. ”
Really? WHO are you talking to, Liberal journalists, bloggers on Liberal forums and the worst college kids? 99 percent of the people I have known in my 36 years hardly care about the Holocaust, let alone thought I was a sociopath for talking about it. But see my above post.
“Faurisson even disputes that that occurred — the only revisionist to do so to my knowledge. That too contributes to my uneasiness about him. He’s sacrificed a lot and invested a great deal of himself in this endeavor, so it’s understandable he’s protective. But the moment he does so he starts to depart from objective inquiry into history. Whether he likes it or not it still is a sensitive subject and his desperation does not inspire confidence.”
Has it occured to you that perhaps Faurison KNOWS far more about this subject than the others? It is startling that he assets certain things, but then I pause to consider that this man most likely has researched and investigated and read more *primary* documents than anyone on earth about this. Besides Rassiner, who is dead, he was the very first to seriously investigate the Holocuast, and he has been digging, researching and scrutinizing documents, written confessions, orders, etc., etc. for almost 50 years now.
He may well have good reason to assert. And see his long, early 1980s article, “A challeng to David Irving” concerning this.
@Tabu La Raza
My original claim: ‘people are put into prison if they suggest that facts might matter,’ just means that people are put in prison for insisting on truth of any kind. It’s *never* safe to insist on truth.
Usually there is a financial interest involved in suppressing truth: tobacco companies, for example, might spend a lot of money to harass lung cancer researchers, at least until the truth gets out.
Julian Assange has recently been harassed for running WikiLeaks.
However, some white-race-specific cases include Zundel and the Heretical Two.
http://www.freethehereticaltwo.com/
http://www.zundelsite.org/
If Occidental Dissent is not an appropriate site for discussion of these matters, the site proprietors need merely hint at their displeasure, and the conspiracy theorists can go elsewhere.
While to the best of my knowledge, Matt Parrott is not the site owner, I take Parrott’s post to mean that an official “no Holocaust denial” policy will be announced officially soon.
Matt Parrott wrote: ‘The real threat to this alien oligarchy won’t come in the form of some “excalibur fact” that awakens the masses. It will come in the form of raising up or rehabilitating an oligarchy capable of achieving the restoration.’
If Occidental Dissent is set aside for raising up an oligarchy, then I apologize for burdening its bandwidth with my impractical intellectual chatter. I am only surprised the site management has taken so long to articulate the parameters of that goal explicitly.
@Petronius: Yes, I’m sure you’re right; I’ll take your word for it. My german is really “pidgin german”, so to speak. German is my third language, after my Scandinavian first language and English. I was an uninterested student of German in junior high and high school about 25-30 years ago and I have no problem admitting that my german s*cks.
It was just that the whole attitude of JB92 was annoying and even his German was misspelled, so I fired at that first, before the actual issue. Mea culpa.
On my trips to Germany, they did seem to understand my verbal german, though. I know enough to say the important things like: “Du bißt sehr schön”, “Ich heiße Erich” and “Eine große halbe liter, bitte”. I haven’t been there for years, I’m married now and I don’t drink, but the principle still holds. 🙂
PS: For those who wonder: When you order beer and say “Eine große halbe liter” (“a large half liter”), you get a full liter! Go figure…
Hunter: “We need more revisionism about the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement.”
Bingo.
Holocaust revision and talking-up national socialism is not going to fly with an American audience.
Also, given a couple of laughable earlier posts, I just couldn’t help myself: http://imgur.com/Nufzy.jpg
Who gives a rat’s ass about the holocaust? All that really matters is that it’s taught in most of the public and private schools in the country, and a great many people will think you’re nuts to deny it. Holocaust revisionism is not central to our cause, Jewish power in America today is. If you want to teach people, stay on topic.
John,
You’re mistaken. There’s no official position on the issue coming down the pike. I was more objecting as an individual to a broader trend within the movement to dwell on cryptkeeping and anti-Christian screeds than I was objecting to discussion of the Holocaust issue in particular.
My statement about raising up an oligarchy was in response to TR’s declaration that we should defy the Jews by focusing on the Holocaust. I offered my opinion that it matters more what we accomplish than what our opponents are most personally offended by. I didn’t mean to suggest that we can only talk about one narrow range of topics.
Matt Parrott wrote:I was more objecting as an individual to a broader trend within the movement to dwell on cryptkeeping… I didn’t mean to suggest that we can only talk about one narrow range of topics.
Well, I think you have a personal gift for political organizing, and that tends to focus your attention on the immediate political dimension. That’s a good thing, so long as you can use your talent.
I have no objection to keeping the crypt-keeping within appropriate bounds; in particular, it’s important for political activists to be always presentable in the world of politics. When they are under public scrutiny, “crypt-keeping” may reduce their eligibility as candidates, so the political candidates *should* be insulated from it.
I agree with many points made by other commenters such as Karl Radl and Armor, and I particularly want to underline Robert Campbell’s comment:
The only way to truly eradicate “Holocaustianity” is by undermining its moral legitimacy. The only way to undermine its moral legitimacy is to prove it false.
That is the conclusion to which Jost Turner came…
The moral struggle involves some “crypt-keeping.” That moral struggle may veer quite far away from the political struggle. It might even be appropriate to keep it on a separate website, or in a public space such as the “/b/” forum of “4chan.org.”
My emphasis on crypt-keeping is not meant to detract in any way from the importance of the political efforts. I respect the gift of political savvy – I don’t have it myself, but I respect it in others.
John,
Crypts do need to be kept, I suppose. Perhaps I can refine my objection: I object to historians inappropriately injecting their topics into contemporary political discourse. Dragging whatever happened on the Eastern Front into this entirely different time and place is indefensible from the position that I’m coming from as a public advocate.
I can see three reasons why one would be inclined to do this…
1. Cluelessness
Some people just like to talk about what interests them, and don’t much care about context. You see this with some of the obsessives in here, who suffer from a personal fixation that causes them to think Nordicism is always relevant.
2. Radicalism
Some people reject the very idea of persuading our target audience altogether. They think that being offensive or extreme will serve to polarize discourse. They perceive themselves as elites and intend to gain power over their minions through control, not through influence. People like myself are faileocons who threaten to thwart their homoerotic Ragnarok fantasies.
3. Rationalization
This is what I believe you, Jost Turner, [and] Jack Ryan [1] are guilty of. You’ve convinced yourselves that “There’s no way out but through the concentration camp”, that the mythology constructed around the Holocaust must be entirely debunked in order to win.
The Jews didn’t have to prove that they didn’t kill Jesus to move past the blood libel. If Jews had obsessively focused on Crucifix Revisionism, they would have gotten nowhere, and would have creeped people out while getting nowhere. They focused on gaining power and influence and then used that power and influence to invert the integrally anti-Semitic nature of Christianity into Judeo-Christianity AFTER their oligarchy gained sufficient influence over our chokepoint institutions.
But most importantly, even if it were proven that the Holocaust was personally supervised by Hitler, that everybody in Germany knew it was happening, and that it was actually performed in an American Idol-style call-to-kill style format that allowed every last German to be directly culpable for it….we would still have a natural and God-given right to exist and defend our traditional way of life for our progeny and our progeny alone. So would modern Germany.
Any alternative conclusion is blood libel and should be blown off as such.
Update:
1. Robert Campbell informed me that my characterization of his stance on this issue is incorrect. I regret the misrepresentation.
Discard: “I’m thinking of the accusation that America didn’t let a ship with about 900 Jewish refugees aboard discharge its cargo in 1939 / … / according to the British Jewish historian Martin Gilbert, out of 280,000 German Jewish refugees, the U.S. took in 240,000.”
The idea that the highest aim of our lives is to “save the Jews”, or to “save starving Africans”, and to invite them over to every white country in the world, is absurd. It is Jewish propaganda. Before Americans would decide to “save the Jews”, they could have tried to save the Ukrainians in the 1930s. And before we save the third-world by resettling its inhabitants in the West at the cost of our own existence, we should tell them to make fewer children. In 1939, I suppose there were already a few million Jews in the USA. Many of them probably knew about their cousins participating in massacres in Russia and the Ukraine. What did they do to stop that? Do they feel any shame or guilt because they didn’t try to save our European brothers?
I think it would’ve been better to get the Jews out of Europe and to avoid the war with Germany. The Jews usually say that they have a right to a territory of their own. In that case, they should recognize that non-Jews have the same right. Relocating the Jews in America was not a good solution for Americans. Instead, they should have been relocated to Palestine or Madagascar. I’ve read somewhere that there was some cooperation between Hitler and the Jews in the beginning, and that he helped some of them move to Palestine. But the war probably stopped that. It’s a shame. Instead of pushing for war on Germany, Jewish organizations in France, Britain and the USA should have pushed for cooperation between those countries to relocate the Jews in Palestine or some other place. Supporting war was a mistake if the aim was to get the Jews safely out of Europe. Do the Jews feel any guilt over that mistake?
Armor makes excellent points: “Instead of pushing for war….”. But the international Zionist leaders did force the war, operating primarily through main shabbatz-goy Winston Churchill, and from their viewpoint for good and sufficient reasons. By 1939 – thanks largely to a series of trade and emigration agreements with the Reich – the Zionists had re-located sufficient numbers of German and other European Jews to Palestine to activate a state; what they now needed was money and symnpathy from the rest of the world. To get it, they betrayed their own diaspora – which, by the way, Zionists privately refer to as the “galuth”; roughly equivalent to a black saying “niggerdom”. In other words, while Hitler thought his public threats against European Jewry would deter the western powers from stabbing him in the back when he went Eastward….the effect was precisely opposite; organized Jewry’s savage Machiavellianism exceeded even his own. Hitler, Germany, and Europe lost utterly. Zion won big.
World War II reenactment 22,000,000,000,000,000
Matt says: “If Jews had obsessively focused on Crucifix Revisionism, they would have gotten nowhere, and would have creeped people out while getting nowhere.”
They didn’t focus obsessively on it. They decided Christ was boiling in a pile of crap in hell and that Mary was a whore and that was that. End of story. They moved on.
I suggest we do the same with claims of Jewish suffering. Yesterday. No Holocaust. Period.
They suffer because they reject Truth. So what?
Get serious, gentlemen.
America is overflowing with Charles Darwin Award candidates like the airhead in this article.
Shock at Park attack
Co-ed jogger’s ordeal
July 8, 2010
A bright-eyed Barnard College freshman was showing signs of improvement yesterday as cops hunted for the hulking thug who savagely mugged her in Riverside Park, leaving her bloodied and unconscious on a bench.
Marisa Cortright, 19, of Salem, Ore., suffered bleeding on the brain, a fractured cheekbone and facial cuts in the attack at 6 a.m. Monday near the West 120th Street tennis courts. She was in stable condition at St. Luke’s Hospital.
“People do not deserve to be treated this way, especially those who have made so many people appreciate, laugh and think more than they had before,” Marin Fanjoy-Labrenz, 19, Cortright’s roommate at Barnard, told The Post.
“She was simply going about her daily workout routine … She’s a sweet, hilarious girl and a friend to all.”
While she jogged, Cortright was grabbed from behind, punched in the face and had her head slammed into a wall by the thug, police sources said. Her iPod was stolen.
Cortright was found by tennis players.
“She doesn’t remember anything,” a police source told The Post.
Cops released a sketch of a 6-foot-2, heavyset black man in his mid-40s seen leaving the park following the attack.
The man–described as a person of interest to investigators–was wearing a bright blue, long-sleeved T-shirt and black pants.
Yesterday afternoon, Cortright appeared groggy as she sat up in her hospital bed under the watchful eye of a nurse.
At Barnard, Cortright is a math whiz who plans to work next semester at the student computing division.
Cortright graduated salutatorian last year from Oregon’s West Salem HS.
Her Columbia University Web page shows a happy student smiling in several pictures with pals. Her posts state that she likes baking, partying with friends, listening to gangster rap, and watching “Arrested Development.”
—————————————————————–
Things will have to get a lot worse before the sheeple will pay attention anything other than asinine sporting events on big screen TVs.
Hopefully this Cortright girl, Barnard College freshman and fan of gangster rap, has just enough brain damage that she’ll have to drop out of her math classes and go to cosmetology school back in her White hometown. Her genes will still be good, and she can marry an electrician and have half a dozen smart White kids.
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.
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.