As an holocaust affirmer, I agree with Greg Johnson in his article yesterday about the so-called Holocaust. But I am referring only to historical facts, not to a putative ethical assessment. For example, in the comment thread holocaust denier Scott said that zero Jews had been gassed: something that contradicts what, over time, revisionist Mark Weber acknowledged about Treblinka.
As far as an ethical assessment is concerned, my position is peculiar.
I would disagree with Hitler if the German chancellor’s mindset is accurately portrayed in Johnson’s article, in that I don’t believe that Jews alone caused the fatidic WW2. Now I blame the Anglo-Saxons more, especially the US, after having assimilated not only Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler (quotes from its first chapters here), but also John Mearsheimer’s realism.
On the other hand, for reasons of transvaluation of values I like Mauricio’s words, “We need more Holocaust Affirmers”: something that is still not noticeable in healthy quantities in discussion threads on racialist forums such as Counter-Currents, or even on the ghost town that my website has become—precisely because I have shifted paradigms! (JQ => CQ).
10 replies on “Ghost town”
Ah, Mark Webber again…
Did he provide any information about Treblinka’s “gas chambers”, their dimensions, technical details about the way they were built? The results of a single autopsy made on a gassed victim, or any forensic data? The precise location of the mass graves or about any excavations made on them? Anything tangible? Did he say what type of gas was used (zyklon is ridiculously complicated and dangerous to use, and carbon monoxide… Please)?
This is the last time I will bother you about the hallofcost. You have the right to believe in anything you want, of course. The last thing I wil do is quote Robert Faurisson: “Show me a gas chamber”.
P.S. I believe that we should gas not only the 12 million of yahweh’s masterpieces (thanks for that, Revilo Oliver), but also the dozens of millions of cryptos too. Not to mention those who worship them…
Hi Jorge,
I agree with you regarding the treatment of ‘half-castes’ and such, and on down from that. I think ideologically these pose the biggest problem (Aryan intelligence, but fundamentally loyal to another race – as best as I can see; very occasional exceptions but I don’t trust them either for the moment, so it’s not an exception formally). I do pity them for having to exist at all. I’m not thinking of half-Jews in this paragraph’s example.
I have to ask too. How does one identify a ‘crypto’? I have no idea quite what the term means, although I take it it’s along racial anthropology lines? It’s difficult for me – I’m not an expert at face judging – given the three main branches of Jews in the first place. Just curious. It’s a term I’ve read now and again, but haven’t evaluated yet.
Hi Jorge,
“White identity leads to genocide”. Our enemies say this all the time but they are right: you cannot save the white race and live in Parrish Land without exterminating all Neanderthals on planet Earth…
Just to clarify above. Sorry, my phrasing can be ambiguous at times… I *did* mean all half-Jews also. I just meant they’re not the most dangerous of the half-breed types, somehow, to me at least (much as they are dangerous in another way; the way that Jews are). Then again, I don’t know them very well so as to be able to judge. I hope I haven’t put my foot in it. I think I was thinking of my own country currently, where there are more overt non-whites that concern me.
Same with me: I hardly know any Jews. Those who influenced me to move from the JQ to the Christian Question were both Christians and atheists. Axiologically, the latter are hyper-Christian insofar as they are horrified by genocide, even of our enemies.
Yes, and all I can see them feeling that horror over is:
1. ‘ugh, it’s not very nice!’ (squeamishness/cowardice)
2. ‘but they surely don’t deserve *that*…’ (treachery – awarding them opportunities and doing their planning for them; on their side)
3. Ultimately: ‘every life is sacred, even…’ (so, as you say, Christian – sacred under which absolute power? if not, then how?)
Or:
4. ‘…innocent life’/’right to life’ (what makes them innocent? Is it what makes you feel you are innocent also, do you think? And explain the latter, as it does seem to be compensating for your direct enemies again; those who hate you and would see you gone, and do make this happen with increasing regularity)
I hope that isn’t too messy.
Although I have read, and as of now am re-reading the Simms extract (as I need the details logged), I just don’t have the historical knowledge to accurately respond with facts on the war (and pre-war leadup). What springs to mind is something Savitri wrote, although I can’t remember where in The Lightning and The Sun.
Adolf Hitler was an almost pure Sun personality. I think that seems right, at least. A ‘God’ figure. From my own thoughts, perhaps he was simply too idealistic for his time, too sentimental on ancient lines towards the English (though, as you say, more realistic over America – he was a wise man after all).
I’d blame the Anglo-Saxons of that country the very most (although won’t recount what I said in a recent email just out of politeness). He wanted friendship more than could have been accepted by them. The US had the power. The English though… I suppose they had the mercantile (poor) aristocratic spite.
I gather his Holocaust (if not by fire) is accurate to the point that I too am an affirmer (of a Mark Weber sort – the exact figure doesn’t preoccupy me), but that the German elite were merely tactful about it, perhaps with long-term insight. Tactful perhaps so as not to damn further Germans to a horrible ‘retribution’ in the face of defeat, and increasingly so, judging the cruelty of their enemies.
Given their nature (and indeed The First World War, which I’d state – though am not going to currently argue for as I am tired today – Britain started), I’d say British machinations – with aligned American competence, if I could phrase it as such a thing – were indeed far more to blame, not that Jewish subterfuge could not browbeat them into further traitorous action also.
On the subject of the extermination, as Heydrich phrased in that lovely film you showed here, and better than me: if you’re going to start a job, finish it. A nice attitude, and sensible too. It is a shame it was impeded so ignorantly. Part of me wonders if they just picked the wrong order for their ideal response, but I don’t want to denigrate them too much. At my humble self-assessment, I think I am too much past the Lightning perspective psychologically, and I don’t think it’s a genuine accolade (although I try to reflect further with corrections, and re-evaluate). In a future time, I think he would have developed both, but the historical conditions of his zeitgeist did not allow for it.
If Hitler was more sun than lightning, Kalki the Exterminationist will be much more lightning than sun…
I’m very glad for that. Yes, it’s suitable for now.
I was thinking in my aside of that ‘flaying’ remark I made recently. I regret that. I feel, no matter the justification (or the practical purpose, as was closer to my speculation), that it would be a step into the feral. Un-Aryan.
But yes, to fight with all the ferocity of a dead age is appropriate. I hope others can draw the line also.
I just posted a comment on Counter-Currents on that thread. The thread is getting lots of replies from deniers!