web analytics
Holocaust Israel / Palestine

Irmin Vinson on the Holocaust

Editor’s note: If white nationalists remain reluctant to debunk the post-war narrative about Hitler and the Holocaust (and by this I do not mean denying that various genocides were committed against various ethnic groups in the 20th century, including Jews), whites will not see the light. Never.

Irmin Vinson’s articles on Hitler and the Holocaust are essential reading for anyone remotely willing to see through the lies with which the elites have been brainwashing us for over sixty years. Although Vinson’s latest article published by Counter-Currents deserves a closer read, as it is over seven thousand words long, I have cut it down to less than half below.

* * *

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the suffering of European Jewry during the Second World War lacked a name. It was just suffering, terminologically indistinguishable from, say, the suffering of Ukrainian peasants during Stalinist collectivization, or even the suffering of German civilians at the hands of the Red Army. The suffering of an American soldier crippled on D-Day, the suffering of a Jew starved at Bergen-Belsen, and the suffering of a German woman crucified on a barn door all belonged to the same broad generic category of wartime deaths and wartime suffering. In the Western democracies historians and the public at large paid, naturally enough, more attention to first two than to the latter, more attention to our suffering than to theirs, but no one believed that ours deserved a special name.

Beginning in the 1960s, during the course of the Civil Rights Revolution, that changed. One group, until then numbered on our side, the Jews, began to distinguish their suffering from everyone else’s.

“Holocaust,” the English version of “Shoah,” was first deployed to describe distinctively Jewish suffering during the 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, a trial consciously conducted as an educational enterprise, and it was not until the late 1960s that “Holocaust” began its ascent into public consciousness in the English-speaking world, propelled by a steadily growing number of essays and books bearing the term, most authored by Jews. In 1968 the Library of Congress replaced “World War, 1939-1945 — Jews” with “Holocaust, Jewish (1939–1945)”; in 1978 the influential television mini-series Holocaust appeared, watched by almost a hundred million Americans, its advertising financed by Jewish organizations; and in the same year President Carter established a commission, chaired by professional “survivor” Elie Wiesel, to create a national museum in Washington memorializing Jewish suffering in Europe. Holocaust remembering accelerated rapidly in the decade that followed, and by 1991 Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, then project director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, could boast, accurately, that World War II was merely a “background story” to the Holocaust. The contrary view, that the Holocaust was a footnote (“point de détail”) to the war, is now illegal in France and much of Europe, as the French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen discovered. The old view of World War II has not only been supplanted; in some countries it has literally been criminalized.

The Jewish Holocaust was a run-of-the-mill horror in a century that saw many horrors, no worse than the Armenian holocaust, or the Cambodian holocaust, or the Russian holocaust, or the Rwandan holocaust, or the Ukrainian holocaust.

Whose suffering gets publicly commemorated is a political decision based not on the magnitude of the suffering but on the political lessons that the commemorators hope to privilege.

There should be no real mystery why this occurred. Holocaust education in the public schools, Holocaust Studies programs at most major universities, a Week of Holocaust Remembrance in mid-April, annual Holocaust commemorations in fifty states, a Holocaust Museum on the Washington Mall, Holocaust documentary after Holocaust documentary, Holocaust film after Holocaust film — all testify either to the absolutely unprecedented character of Jewish suffering during World War II, a suffering that dwarfs all pseudo-holocausts into pitiable insignificance, or else to the power of Jews to foist their racial agenda on White Gentiles. Since the first alternative should be unthinkable — the death-tolls of Soviet and Chinese Marxism were twenty million and sixty-five million respectively, according to the Black Book — no one can seriously discuss contemporary “Holocaust mania” without also discussing Jewish power.

[Norman] Finkelstein has, however, no intention of discussing Jewish power, and he resolves the problem, in his own mind, by recourse to a fantasy common across the mainstream political spectrum, from Rush Limbaugh on the Right to Noam Chomsky on the Left — the fantasy of Israel as a valuable strategic resource, “a proxy for US power in the Middle East” necessary to ensure cheap oil and docile Muslims. Because the Holocaust deflects legitimate criticism of the Jewish State, Finkelstein argues, incessant remembering of the Holocaust also serves American foreign-policy objectives.

It is difficult even to conceive how this Israeli proxy is supposed to function, and there is no evidence that it does function, witness the price of oil, a devastating oil embargo in the 1970s, and the conspicuously undocile Muslim terrorists who now regularly attack Americans. But the proxy’s phantom existence enables Finkelstein and some others on the Left to identify their anti-Zionism as a species of anti-Americanism. Leftist criticism of Israel becomes de facto criticism of American geopolitical objectives. The latter are, Finkelstein imagines, really responsible for the billions shipped annually to Israel, and Zionist lobby groups in Washington, motivated not by distinctively Jewish group loyalty but by the raceless pursuit their own political agendas, are only the willing facilitators, “marching in lock-step with American power.” The unexamined assumption — that support for Israel benefits the United States — remains unexamined. No one need discuss Jewish power, Finkelstein has convinced himself, because Jewish power is only a useful tool in the hands of much more powerful non-Jewish “ruling elites.”

Finkelstein’s implausible thesis was necessary, from his perspective, only because the fact, if openly acknowledged, of strong Jewish racial loyalties will inevitably lead anyone who thinks seriously about the political abuse of the Holocaust to anti-Semitic conclusions. Incessant Holocaust promotion by Jews has some obvious ulterior motives, none of which has anything to do with American foreign-policy objectives: to delegitimize nationalism within majority-White nations; to legitimize Jewish nationalism in the Jewish State; to immunize Jews from criticism; to extract money from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, etc. Holocaust remembering is, in short, part of a racially self-interested agenda — it helps Jews and hurts us.

The Lessons of the Holocaust

The Jewish Holocaust, we are told endlessly, teaches universal “lessons,” and there are now taxpayer-funded Holocaust museums throughout the West, along with an extensive miseducational apparatus, designed to impart these supposedly crucial “lessons,” applicable (so we are instructed) to everyone everywhere. But the principal “lesson” that the Holocaust teaches is, undoubtedly, the lethal consequences of any racial or national consciousness among Whites. Because White racialism and intolerance and nationalism led to the Holocaust, White racialism and intolerance and nationalism must be eradicated, to avoid future holocausts. In terms of practical politics a politician who opposes Third World immigration on racial or even on cultural grounds has failed to learn the “lessons of the Holocaust”; the largely successful Jewish campaigns to tag Patrick Buchanan and Jörg Haider with the “Nazi” label/libel are recent cases in point.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington announced its anti-White objectives early on, even before its construction: “This museum belongs at the center of American life because America, as a democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and its ultimate expression, genocide.” Genocide is, according to Jewish Holocaust lore, the natural outcome of any racial self-assertion by people of European descent, and American democracy is, by Jewish fiat, devoted to the extirpation of every vestige of our racial consciousness. That, not surprisingly, is what organized Jewry has wanted all along, as Kevin MacDonald has thoroughly documented.

In theory, the “lessons of the Holocaust” should teach Jews that Israel cannot ethically remain an explicitly Jewish state, committed to the preservation and advancement of a single Volk, rooted in land, tradition and blood, but must instead become a multiracial “state of its citizens,” bound together only by abstract political principles and an eagerness to celebrate diversity, like the nation-less anti-nations most Diaspora Jews now demand that their host populations become. In practice, needless to say, few Jews and no major Jewish organizations allow logical consistency and the lessons of the Holocaust to interfere with their racial self-interest. On the contrary: “The heart of every authentic response to the Holocaust,” writes philosopher Emil Fackenheim, “…is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel.” Whereas in Israel Jews have formed a Jewish State for themselves and permit no one but Jews to immigrate into it, not even the Palestinian Arabs they ejected in 1948, in the Diaspora they campaign for multiculturalism and Third World immigration. Jews hate all nationalisms save their own; they are nationalists within Israel, but anti-nationalists everywhere else.

Broad Jewish support for Zionism in Israel, coupled with strident opposition to any form of racialism or nationalism in the Diaspora, is the defining hypocrisy of contemporary Jewry. Finkelstein, like the late Israel Shahak, is not guilty of it. He is a principled man: He opposes racialism in the United States, so he also opposes it in Israel. Yet he is apparently unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, his own anti-racialist debt to the “shelves upon shelves of [Holocaust] shlock” under whose weight American libraries are currently groaning. What has been, beyond any doubt, the most politically significant lesson of the Holocaust, the evil of White “racism,” is almost completely absent from his text [The Holocaust Industry], appearing only in two sentences in the final chapter:

Seen through the lens of Auschwitz, what previously was taken for granted — for example, bigotry — no longer can be. In fact, it was the Nazi holocaust that discredited the scientific racism that was so pervasive a feature of American intellectual life before World War II.

Auschwitz did not, of course, scientifically discredit scientific racism, but it is certainly true that the academic study of racial differences has been discredited by its association with German National Socialism, although the facts themselves remain indifferent to the lessons of the Holocaust. It is also true that “bigotry is no longer taken for granted,” but this bland summary of the sea-change in post-war attitudes to race requires a translation. Finkelstein, like most multiracialists, believes that the majority-White nations of the West are still riddled, from top to bottom, with bigotry and systemic “racism.” The fight against White “racism” has scarcely begun; the lessons of the Holocaust have only taught us that bigotry should no longer be taken for granted.

Thus in the midst of a culture soaked in White guilt, Finkelstein recommends more of the same, while presenting his proposals as part of a radical assault on a conservative Holocaust Establishment too timid to berate the goyim with the severity they deserve. “We could,” he says, “learn much about ourselves from the Nazi experience,” and he helpfully suggests additional atrocities that we might, if so inclined, also commemorate: European “genocide” in the Americas; American atrocities during the Vietnam war; American enslavement of Blacks; murderous Belgian exploitation of the Congo. All of these suggestions for atrocity commemoration have a feature in common that should not be too difficult to discern, and with the likely exception of the last, each could be dutifully recited by any well-indoctrinated schoolboy, thanks to multicultural miseducation.

Finkelstein has further suggestions. We could also contemplate, while learning much about ourselves from the Nazi experience, how “Manifest Destiny anticipated nearly all the ideological and programmatic elements of Hitler’s Lebensraum policy”; how German eugenics programs, commonly regarded as precursors of the Jewish Holocaust, merely followed American precedents; how the Nuremberg Laws were a milder variant of the Southern prohibition of miscegenation; how “the vaunted western tradition is deeply implicated in Nazism as well,” Plato and Rousseau being the proto-Nazis Finkelstein has in mind. Clearly, learning from the Nazi experience means learning to see the Nazi in ourselves and in our history.

Here Finkelstein’s self-described radical critique of Holocaust orthodoxies has a parasitical relation to what it purports to debunk, tacitly relying on alleged Holocaust uniqueness in order construct a tenuous guilt-by-association which would be laughable in any other context. Hitler opposed “birth control on the ground that it preempts natural selection”; Rousseau said something similar. Most American states once had eugenics laws sanctioning the sterilization of mental defectives; the Nazis had similar laws. Leo Strauss called this form of non-reasoning the reductio ad Hitlerum. We are expected to see, and unfortunately most Whites will indeed see, not discrete ethical issues but a sinister pattern that establishes culpability.

Yet the sinister pattern of culpability only exists if the Holocaust remains, on account of its unparalleled evil, the terminus toward which all of Western history was directed; the pattern ceases to exist if the Holocaust is dislodged from its position high atop a hierarchy of suffering. Substitute the Judeo-Bolshevik slaughter of Ukrainians for the Jewish Holocaust [see e.g., here] and you will also select a different set of sign-posts leading to a different unparalleled evil.

Since Finkelstein does not practice what he preaches, avoiding the implications of his own call to democratize suffering, his preferred Holocaust lessons turn out, as we have seen, to be not much different from the anti-racialist lessons that Holocaust promoters already teach. Elie Wiesel would have no objection to most of Finkelstein’s pedagogy of White guilt, though he would of course insist that Jews need not be among its pupils. White guilt is a given for both; they differ only on how we should best commemorate it and on whether Jews should be included among the group to whom the requisite lessons must be addressed. We are, Finkelstein and Wiesel agree, morally obliged to “confront” and “remember” Nazi crimes, even though the confronting and remembering will be “difficult” and “painful,” because we were somehow complicit in them, and in this both articulate what is now surely the core dogma of Holocaust propaganda.

“[To] study… the Holocaust,” says Marcia Sachs Littell, director of the National Academy for Holocaust and Genocide Teacher Training, “is also to study the pathology of Western civilization and its flawed structures.” Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, Holocaust theologian, goes further: “The guilt of Germany is the guilt of the West. The fall of Germany is the fall of the West. Not only six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. In it Western civilization lost its claim to dignity and respect.”

Such expressions of anti-Western animus, routine in Jewish Holocaust writing, would be very difficult to reconcile with Finkelstein’s account of the genesis of Holocaust remembering, namely that organized Jewry “forgot” the Holocaust throughout the 1950s and then, in order to become valued participants in American statecraft, tactically “remembered” it in 1967, so that “Jews now stood on the front lines defending America — indeed, ‘Western civilization’ — against the retrograde Arab hordes.”

Anti-Western animus is, on the other hand, very easy to explain within the socio-political context of the decade when, by all accounts, the Holocaust received its English name and began its ascent into popular consciousness. American Jewry’s decision to remember the Holocaust was dependent on White America’s willingness to listen. A speaker normally presupposes an auditor, and vocal Holocaust remembering likewise presupposes receptive Holocaust listening. Jews had no intention in the 1960s and they have no intention now of remembering their Holocaust in the absence of a non-Jewish audience.

American Jews conveniently recovered their forgotten Holocaust memory at the very historical moment when racial victimization in the past began to confer political power in the present. The religion of the Holocaust was the Jewish version of anti-White identity politics. To number yourself among the wretched of the earth was a source of political power during the Civil Rights Revolution, and it continued to be a source of political power in the decades that followed.

Jews had played an instrumental role in fomenting the Revolution, and by remembering the Holocaust they enlisted themselves, citing an impeccable pedigree of suffering at the hands of Whites, among the minority groups eligible to receive its moral capital, while relieving themselves of membership, largely nominal in any case, in the White oppressor race, against whom the Revolution was and still is directed. Through the Holocaust the most successful ethnic group in American history not only joined the various aggrieved minorities staking out a claim against the Euro-American majority, but also pushed itself to the front of the line.

Since Jews are more intelligent and much more politically powerful than other aggrieved minorities, they have elevated their wartime victimization above all other victimizations, while surrounding it with a deceptive, often eloquent language of humane universalism. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust, philosopher Paul Ricoeur writes, are “delegates to our memory of all the victims of history,” a formulation which in practice means that all of history’s other victims can be safely ignored or consigned to a small, dark corner in your local Holocaust museum, being somehow included in the representative suffering of the Jews.

Thus this exceptional piece of Holocaust lore from Yad Vashem’s Avner Shalev: “We add our voice to those who believe that the Holocaust, because of its Jewish specificity, should serve as a model in the global fight against the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred and genocide.” The sentence is logically incoherent but its meaning is clear: Jewish specificity ensures universality. And the political subtext is also clear: In the holy war against “racism,” one race of victims is far more equal than the rest.

* * *

Insofar as we accept, as far too many of us do, the false moral burden to feel racial guilt over German wartime atrocities, real and fictional, we have internalized Jewish ethnocentrism, learning to see ourselves through Jewish eyes. We should therefore learn our own “lesson of the Holocaust” — that the descendants of both the winners and the losers of the Second World War now have a common interest in repudiating the old mythology of unique Nazi evil, along with the anti-Western Holocaust industry which has fastened itself on it.

20 replies on “Irmin Vinson on the Holocaust”

I lost interest in Norman Finklestein when he was patched into a news telecast from Tehran about the Holocaust Conference there and dismissed Lady Michelle Renouf and David Duke as “Flat Earthers.”
They had been commenting on the event intelligently when Finklestein
got pissy and played his 2nd generation Holocaust survivor card. That was it for me and that man. However, every now and then I’ll revisit his Democracy Now debate with Alan Dershowitz just watch those two ferrets pitching pilpul and tearing up their cage while an expressionless Amy Goodman looks bovinely on.

The Holocaust is different from the other genocides for several reasons, starting with the fact that it entailed the. I’ll get to that in a moment.

First, it should be noted that most murders in the Holocaust were committed through mass shootings (as with Babi Yar). In the great anti-Semitic bastions of Eastern Europe, there was less motivation to deport the Jews to be killed. The locals would be far less phased to know the Jews were being shot two miles into the woods or village-by-village. So when revisionists point out that “only” 1 or 2 million people were killed by gas, this does not revise anything and is pure sophistry.

Second, the Holocaust is materially different than other genocides for the following reasons:

1) it was the natural culmination of 1,000 years of extreme and myth-based (as opposed to territorially based, as with almost all other hatreds, possibly excluding the hatred of Islam against all infidels) Jew-hatred throughout Europe
2) it was the centerpiece of the Nazi program and one for which Hitler was willing to lose the war
3) it had material support throughout several dozen countries
4) it annihilated 2/3 of its European Jewish target (between 3 and 10 times the percentages killed in other genocides), including over 3 million in Poland and 1.5 million in the former Soviet Union alone (not too hard to reach an estimate of 6 million)
5) it was systematic and it was not territorial
6) it bore the ironies that (a) the deity of the murderers’ accomplices was in every way Jewish; (b) a myth of the death of that deity intended to make it safer to be a Christian in Jew-hating Rome (following the Jewish revolts for independence) also supported eternal collective punishment (pretty wacky and immoral in my view–also very much against the teachings and spirit of that deity)

It is a fact that the Jews have suffered at the hands of others more than any other people throughout history and that their experience can teach much about the dangers and wackiness of group-based hatred. All the moreso because the Jews didn’t hate others, didn’t act against others and contributed much to the world. Jew-haters can’t stand the special role that Jews play in this unenviable role, as Jew-haters do not want to be “guilted” into sympathy for their enemy and certainly do not want others to have any sympathy for Jews either.

The Jews of Europe had played a key role in modernizing Europe just the same as the Jews of the U.S. have helped the U.S. achieve economic and military success and have contributed much of today’s modern medical technology and over quarter of the U.S. Nobel prizes, 10 X their fair share.

The myths and conspiracy theories that Jew-haters like to tell about Jews came from a French novel where the villains were replaced with Jews by a Czarist propagandist attempting to provoke pogroms against the Jews in the wake of the failed 1905 revolt against the Czar. Henry Ford then took many of these ideas in his own propaganda against the Jews, which inspired Hitler.

The fact is, the reason that Jews are more successful than others is that they have a higher average IQ (they have had to in order to survive in hostile lands and they were barred in most of those places from farming, so had to engage in more intellectual trades) and they have a culture that values education and study and that permits the questioning and challenging of dogma and has not had central authority for 2,000 years.

Hitler was afraid of the very modernization that favored the Jews’ intellectual advantages. He wanted a return to a mythical agrarian ideal (one in which starvation and plague were routine, but his myth omitted that part) and where muscular strength, rather than intellectual strength and the moral ideals that Judaism (think 10 Commandments, love your neighbor, all people are created in God’s image, you are your brother’s keeper, jealousy is an abomination, etc.) has introduced to help make the world less barbaric and more civilized, moral and humane.

You don’t seem to have read witness testimonies of the Gulag, the genocide of Armenians in Turkey or the Holocaust perpetrated by Pol Pot when I was much younger. Nor you seem to have read Solzhenitsyn’s Archipelago Gulag or his study on the Russian Jews, 200 Years Together. And you seem to be ignorant as well about the Holocaust perpetrated by Jews in the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, you are absolutely clueless about the Jewish Question.

First, I would recommend your reading of the magnum opus of a Jewish scholar of anti-Semitism, Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears.

Once you digest that, we could continue discussing. Take heed that it’s a treatise published by Cambridge and that, although Lindemann is a Jew, he doesn’t swallow the lachrymose interpretation of the history of the Jews and anti-Semitism as you do.

First, it should be noted that most murders in the Holocaust were committed through mass shootings (as with Babi Yar). In the great anti-Semitic bastions of Eastern Europe, there was less motivation to deport the Jews to be killed. The locals would be far less phased to know the Jews were being shot two miles into the woods or village-by-village. So when revisionists point out that “only” 1 or 2 million people were killed by gas, this does not revise anything and is pure sophistry.

Mass shootings “one or two miles into the woods” sure is a departure from the Orthodox Narrative. Do the remains no longer exist (a given, of course) because the Ratzis covered the countryside with mobile crematoria, or is there to be some other convenient excuse?

1) it was the natural culmination of 1,000 years of extreme and myth-based (as opposed to territorially based, as with almost all other hatreds, possibly excluding the hatred of Islam against all infidels) Jew-hatred throughout Europe

Absurd. 1) “1,000 years of extreme Jew-hatred throughout Europe” is Jewish Supremacist rhetoric (that sadly passes for “official” history these days) with little bearing on real history. 2) It was definitely territorially based, as people only object to Jews when they become acquainted with them via proximity.

2) it was the centerpiece of the Nazi program and one for which Hitler was willing to lose the war

Anything having to do with the Jews is, of course, the centerpiece of anything/everything, once you start letting Jewish Supremacist history substitute for the genuine article.

4) it annihilated 2/3 of its European Jewish target (between 3 and 10 times the percentages killed in other genocides), including over 3 million in Poland and 1.5 million in the former Soviet Union alone (not too hard to reach an estimate of 6 million)

Where is the evidence of this colossal event? Six million corpses (or their remains, or even evidence thereof) would be nice. Even if they were all burned in mobile crematoria, there should be mountains of ash and bone fragments buried all over Europe. Where are the mass graves? Ground-penetrating radar could find them easily. But finding actual evidence to shut up the revisionists ranks somewhere (way) below making Holocaust documentary #4,612, and writing Holocaust tear-jerker #78,845, apparently.

6) it bore the ironies that (a) the deity of the murderers’ accomplices was in every way Jewish.

Nonsense. But at least we know where you’re coming from, now; you’re Jewish yourself.

It is a fact that the Jews have suffered at the hands of others more than any other people throughout history and that their experience can teach much about the dangers and wackiness of group-based hatred. All the moreso because the Jews didn’t hate oth-

*Yaa-aaawn* Okay, that’s enough Jewish mental masturbation, I think. No reason for me to read more of that nonsense – I’ve had a lifetime’s worth of overweening Jewish self-regard.

The word “holocaust” is supposed to mean “death by fire”.
I have no doubt that lots of Jewish persons attempted to escape their Jewish leaders war against the German people by deciding to take temporary accommodation in Dresden which at the time was thought to be a safe haven for anyone.
So tough luck to those Jewish scum bags who were really! burnt to death as is meant by the true meaning of the word “Holocaust”.


Thank you, Chechar, for your thoughtful reply.

The fact that somebody can come up with reasons that different groups may resent Jews does not, to my way of thinking, justify that resentment, much less murder…or complaining about Jews wanting to prevent it from happening again by teaching about it.

Also, “the Jews” were not responsible for anybody else’s genocide (ever since Canaan and Benjamin, a few thousand years ago), even if there were some individual Jews who were part of the early Soviet regime…once again, that’s lumping all Jews together, which makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians together…only moreso because there wasn’t any Jewish ideology governing the actions of those Jewish individuals (whereas SOME Christians feel justified in killing for purely theological and mythological reasons).

Also, Russia would still be peasant serfs were it not for Jewish revolutionaries, so ALL Russians should thank the Jews for even caring about them 100 years ago when nobody else did.

I think more relevant is the reasons that the world should love the Jews.

1) Genesis 12:3
2) They gave the world the Ten Commandments, knowledge of God, and other moral laws and principals, such as the rights to freedom coming from God and not tyrants
3) They gave the world: aspirin, potassium-based fertilizer (that feeds HALF the world), nuclear energy, Google and Facebook, much (not all) of modern finance (that HAS made the world MUCH wealthier, whether Neanderthal thinkers are capable of understanding that or not), the polio vaccine, the hepatitis B vaccine, Hollywood (which I happen to enjoy, despite my disagreement with the politics and lowest-common-denominator aspect of much of their output), Intel (Andy Grove and the Israel design teams), instant messaging, voice-mail, firewalls, the best UAV’s, reactive armor and missile defense, the best intelligence agency and ally against the jihad, the world’s largest solar field (in Southern California), the best (and most) geo-thermal energy (Ormat), the potential for thorium power, they financed the American Revolution and the Union in the Civil War (without getting repaid…e.g. Haim Solomon died poor)…and I could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is…the Jews are a force for good (even despite their occasional wacko like Marx–who was an anti-Semite and a convert to Catholicism, Madoff, Trotsky).

So, it is my opinion that:

1) Jews ARE the model minority
2) The world would be a much more backward and less fun place without the Jews
3) People who hate Jews focus on a few irrelevant anecdotes rather than the big picture
4) People who hate Jews tend to be jealous of them and/or have identity issues that they sublimate into theories of purity or superiority and, further, have a pretty limited sample of Jews in their own life (probably met a few Woody Allen’s or something, rather than Nathalie Portmans–too bad for them)

By the way, you’re obviously a highly intelligent person. Why not spend your time focusing on the positive, rather than on reasons to hate? Jews really don’t have it in for you. You could probably stand in the middle of Times Square and preach your theories and nobody would bother you. They would just think you’ve gone off the deep end into that millennium old mental illness known as anti-Semitism. Try preaching anti-black or anti-Muslim theories or anti-Hispanic theories and see how long you’d last.

Mike: do yourself a favor and read at least the excerpts of Esau’s Tears I linked above. If you are not Jewish, you will find refreshing to know that even a knowledgeable Jew differs from the points you raised above.

Thank you, Chechar. I have read the reviews of Esau’s Tears–all the Amazon reviews–both positive and negative.

I believe you will take issue with my cursory conclusion (not having read his book), however, it does appear to me that Lindemann is a classic self-hating Jew from the following evidence (follows is a quote from one Amazon reviewer):

“Al Shirk (he changed his surname to his wife’s, Lindemann, back in the glory days of sensitive feminism) is a socialist historian of European socialism, who has been trying to indoctrinate students at UC Santa Barbara for more than 30 years. In my experience with him as a graduate student, he viewed everything through a filter that ignored contrary evidence and accepted only information that placed socialism in a good light. Clever, he was not profound. In seminar, getting him to agree with silly, but pro-socialist, propositions was a sport. Several Jewish graduate students described him then as a self-hating Jew. This book seems consistent with his ideological bent.”

So it would appear as though he is cut from the hard leftist self-hating Jewish mold (as his students, way back then, without his focus on Jewish material at the time, easily identified) of a Chomsky or a Finkelstein or an Ilan Pappe or a Medea Benjamin–these are typically red-diaper babies who came of age in the late ’60s. If Bill Ayers had been a Jew, he would have been in this group. This does not exactly give Lindemann, who apparently changed his last name from Shirk, very much credibility as objective.

Self-hating Jews to Jews what Uncle Toms are to African Americans…an execrable yet inevitable product of internalized racism and a shameful and pathetic effort to distinguish oneself from “the bad ones” by signing onto the haters’ claims.

I found the review first in this link below to provide the strong case against the author’s methods: link

This other reviewer’s citation is also explanatory:

“Robert Wistrich (“Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred”) is one of the most respected authorities today on antisemitism. His review of this books says, ‘… in this deeply pernicious book. Although some chapters are more balanced than others, Lindemann’s presentation throughout is marked not only by sympathy for the arguments of anti-Semites but by an undisguised antipathy toward Judaism and Jews.’ ”

This quote of Wistrich supports the claim by Lindemann’s former student that he was known to be a self-hating Jew three decades ago.

It would seem as though Lindemann’s prior subject matter failed to afford him the opportunity to live out his self-hating orientation, or to realize the cottage fame Finkelstein has proven it affords…until he conceived of this book.

I believe that you are a highly intellectually capable individual yet, arrive to these issues with a prior filter, admitting only works that buttress those views.

I also believe that the simple fact to which you ought to refer is this:

The Jews are a polyglot, with both good and bad, as with any nation. However, they are also the most intelligent by any objective measure (although, ironically, seldom so collectively–there have been tests demonstrating that group intelligence can be more useful than individual intelligence for many classes of problems). Due to this fact, they have simply been at the cutting edge of innovation, no matter whether scientific, ethical, theological, or commercial. And both their good ones and their bad ones have excelled, inciting envy in the first case and disdain in the latter case (although I would submit that acclaim is far more appropriate a response to the former case…and taken as a whole…I’ll take a Madoff or a Trotsky any day if that’s the price to pay for an Einstein or a von Neumann or a Milton Friedman or an Ayn Rand). Although it is only a small minority of Jews that excel in either direction (although proportionately many more than for lower IQ populations), because of myths taught by the Church and both forced and voluntary exclusion of Jews, the Jews were stereotyped as a whole, resulting in collective punishment for / hatred of the Jews.

Without the Holocaust, we could have had double the Einsteins, von Neumann’s, Friedmans and Rands and Jonas Salks, Intels, Googles, etc….and that would have advanced human civilization another 50 years forward…and much more so in future generations.

Lindemann is no “self-hating” Jew. After his book was published a Jewish professor survivor of the Holocaust wrote him and thanked him for having explained the basic etiology of anti-Semitism so well. Any Jew who recognizes that there is a Jewish Problem is immediately labeled as “self-hating” by those who don’t want to see the problem. If used to dismiss Lindemann’s historical research and his arguments, it is a classical ad hominem.

I agree with you that ad hominem attack lacks merit. I also agree with you that serious intellectual exploration of any topic is worthy and should not be discredited solely for challenging the conventional wisdom or for offending.

However, I do not call him self-hating on account of this book.

I do, however, assume that he is self-hating based upon his own students calling him self-hating 30 years prior to his writing this book and prior to his appearing to focus on Jewish material…it seems to be an honest out-of-sample, non-ad-hominem, ex-ante classification of him. Also, buttressing that ex-ante assessment, there is the small matter of correlation…he’s a leftist (socialist) professor at Santa Barbara who came of age in the late 1960’s…classic self-hating profile. (…and the gentiles with the same profile hate America, instead). He also changed his surname (father / identity issues?) with his wife as pretext. And that last point is way, way unusual. What is that, like one in a million? (I don’t mean changing one’s last name, but changing one’s last name to the wife’s family name.)

It’s classic and it’s the best guess to make.

The only Jewish problem I believe exists is that Jews have not been allowed to survive and thrive even more…that Jew-haters waste their own lives getting obsessed, rather than figuring out how to contribute scientific and economic progress to the world…and that the Jews are disappearing due to assimilation and, so, will be unlikely to produce the game-changing geniuses they did in the 20th Century.

Also, using these Holocaust survivor fans as proof that Lindemann is a good academic is just wack…you can find anti-Israel and pro-Israel Holocaust survivors…you can find self-hating Holocaust survivors…there is every type of Holocaust survivor, so one can always be found to suit every purpose. I believe there were about 350,000 Holocaust survivors, after all.

And Jews are a very ideologically diverse group. Again, think Marx and Trotsky vs. Rand and Friedman and Von Mises. Think Moses vs. Freud. Think Jesus vs. Rand. Heck, think Salk vs. Sabin. I think the expression goes, for every two Jews, you have three opinions.

@ “The only Jewish problem I believe exists is that Jews have not been allowed to survive and thrive even more…”

Obviously you don’t know what the JP is. I am amazed, since Lindemann explains it well for a Jewish audience in the excerpts you say you have read (and I presume you are Jewish). Anyway, in this prologue Prof. MacDonald explains the JP even better.

No, I did not say that I have read the book. I have only read the reviews on Amazon, after you recommended the book to me yesterday.

I have made several points that you have not responded to and I would like to hear your response if you have the time.

1) it appears as though he is a self-hating Jews (based upon student opinion 30 years ago even before he delved into Jewish matters (and also based upon his hard-left orientation and name-changing)
2) Jew-haters should focus on contributing to the world in matters of science and commerce and should appreciate the Jews for setting a high bar and for improving standards of living through those contributions
3) The world would be far more barbaric (as is humanity’s tendency, and the tendency of most animals) absent the Jews’ moral and ethical contributions (following which–especially the ones I enumerated above–is the greatest way humans can differentiate themselves from animals)
4) Jews have a higher average IQ and so excel in producing noteworthy people including good ones such as Einstein and bad ones such as Marx–the good ones are far more important, numerous and enduring than the bad ones. Therefore, Jews should be valued and there should be more of them. Humanity has not yet managed to produce an alternative for such a rich pool of intellectual talent (even it it’s just 1 in 1000 of them, that’s all we need!…and it beats the pants off the 1 in 100,000 of others who can make comparable contributions).
5) (new point) You can always choose to focus on negative anecdotes or negative stereotypes of the Jews. The strong pre-disposition toward this (historic Christian anti-Semitism, jealousy of successful neighbors, hatred of strange neighbors) is no excuse, by today’s more civilized values, for hatred so motivated, much less stories of such from 100 years ago about how the Jews of Europe managed to piss off their neighbors thusly.
6) (new point) People who use this stuff as justification for their Jew-hatred already hated Jews anyway, so claiming that they finally found a supportable reason and here it is, as though it were an a-ha moment is disingenuous.
7) (new point) Jew-haters tend to be on the evil side, so why would you want to go there. We have Pharaoh the enslaver (who thought himself a god), Hitler the raving machismo warmonger who destroyed a continent and 50 million people and claimed his people were superior and, worse, that that superiority conferred entitlement to kill, enslave or, at least, to subjugate. We have Ahmadinejad, who also calls the U.S. the “great Satan”…and wants nukes at any price…and is building terrorist networks against the U.S. in South America…Louis Farrakhan, who is also an all-purpose racist, America-hater and is also a Christian-hater. Jew hatred is just bad company. Why choose a team of raving Dr. Evil’s? It’s a waste of one’s life. Use it for good.
8) (new point) Find any anecdotes you want. Be annoyed as you want. Jews are entitled to conduct their lives, keep the law of the land, and don’t need to explain themselves or apologize for anything. They’re just regular people (except for the 1 in 1,000 who become totally extraordinary) and they are actually more diverse than any other nation. Any use of anecdotes about why the Jews deserve permanent collective punishment is both wrong and, also, totally wacky. And if anyone were making up a balance sheet, the Jews should receive collective awards, not punishments.

…I survived (six years of imprisonment in ghettos, labor camps and concentration camps as a child during World War II)… When, as a nine-year-old, I spent a month in Buchenwald, it never occurred to me that those of my fellow-inmates who were Gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, or Danish policemen arrested for helping the Jews escape, were undergoing experiences that were different from mine…. Ever since, for over half a century, I have not been able to accept the singling out of this one front, horrible as it may have been, as a unique epoch-making event that requires its own grandiose name, its own capitalized dictionary entry, its own academic discipline called “Holocaust studies.”… But the recent, officially accepted revision of the number of Auschwitz victims from four million to a million or so has made me wonder. One of the precursors of denialism, Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967, asked: “Were Jews murdered?” and answered: “Yes, but not as many as one thinks. Were there any gas chambers? Yes, but not as many as one thinks.” … For those who believe in ethnic cleansing, the leap from resettlement to massacre is not as great as some of us may think; and if the Nazis were, perhaps, no more evil than the Interahamwe of Uganda, the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries led by Karadžić and Mladić, or the anti-independence militias of East Timor, there is no reason to suppose that they were less so…. Both of my parents survived, and I had no siblings. I have no tattoo (though I sometimes perversely envied those who had them). I was never beaten or starved. After the War I went on with school at the normal grade level. And when I recently visited the Buchenwald memorial site, the foremost thought in my mind – unrepentant cinephile that I am – was to find the location of the barrack where I saw my first movie; never mind that my first screen image was of a smiling Hitler on horseback, introducing a newsreel. The search for the site of the barrack where I actually lived took second place. … I spent the last months of the War, after Buchenwald, in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp…


Quoted from today’s featured article, “A Dissident Meditation on Jewish Identity: A Review of Gilad Atzmon’s ‘The Wandering Who?’” at TOO. (Take note that Gilad Atzmon is Jewish!):

Atzmon notes that the Holocaust cult has all the features of a religion and none of the features of a historical narrative:

It has priests (e.g., Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (those who warn of the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has commandments and dogmas (‘Never Again’) and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc). It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (kapos, gas chambers, chimneys). It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines — Holocaust museums in capital cities worldwide. The Holocaust religion is also financed by a massive global financial network. This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ (Holocaust deniers) and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws). (pp. 148–149)

The Holocaust has therefore achieved “meta-historical status” — beyond factual inquiry, its “factuality sealed by draconian laws, and its reasoning secured by social and political institutions” (p. 149). It is a powerful political force on behalf of Jewish interests—e.g., it “is touted as a pretext for nuking Iran” (p. 152).

Jews, as a group, are free to be obsessed with themselves. But why do they want everyone else to also be equally obsessed with that ever-hyped Jew-Suffering? Jews are not the only people who live in the world worth thinking about. Give me a break!

Grow up. With all your Israel obsession, go to your Israel and live there and indulge in your obsession! Further, being intelligent and all that, make technical advancements and conquer the world, exactly like what your unintelligent cousins, Arab Muslims, are trying to do. And when you fail, as you must, bite the dust and learn humility.

Don’t come here and tell us what to think and what to talk. We are not interested in the facts that you are obsessed with! We are free to choose our obsessions!

Jews need to learn about what is wrong with Jews instead of harping on what non-Jews need to learn about what is wrong with antisemitism.

I think E. Michael Jones has done a decent job putting the JQ into perspective in his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and it’s Impact on World History. For a self-concratulatory and revealing insiders history of Jewish Power in America The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg’s is a good read. Being a probable londsman “Mike P.” has swallowed the Kool-Aid on the Jews’ contribution to modernity and their model minority status. His promotion of positivity with regards to the JQ is how this tribe has
finally succeeded in getting themselves precision placed at every choke point in Western (Christian) culture. Now, he wants to be thanked for 2,000 years of whinging, weedeling, preening and critiquing. Enough already! Please gather up all your morbid Holocaust toys and take them with you back to your sacred ethno-state. Leave us alone to bumble along by ourselves. Thanks.

Comments are closed.