People in power put in jail those who question the Holocaust in Europe. In the country of the First Amendment they don’t jail them, but it happened that President Bush deported a Holocaust denier to Europe to let the authorities jail him there!
The Holocaust is a topic that is not usually touched upon in American white nationalist forums either. Unlike the position of Greg Johnson, who believes that the subject should be abandoned—and I refer to what he discussed years ago with Hadding Scott on The Occidental Observer—, I think that the subject of the Holocaust is paramount for the Aryan to reclaim his mental health. It is a very thorny issue and no wonder no one on the racial right wants to address the very core, the ethical part. (The articles Ron Unz publishes on his webzine about the Holocaust and get thousands of hits, and hundreds of comments, fail to address the ethical issue.) So let’s try to address it from my POV, ‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’.
First of all, for Hitler’s willing executioners the suffering the Holocaust caused wasn’t unnecessary but necessary. When I was a new-born, one of them even tried to justify himself with these words to those who had any moral qualms:
Menschenkinder, verflucht noch mal eine Generation muss dies halt durchstehen, damit es unsere Kinder besser haben! (Damn it!: A generation has to go through this so that our children will fare better.) [1]
Against Hollywood and even Russian film propaganda (see for example this scene from the Russian movie Come and See where some Belorussian Jews were holocausted in their own village), when one begins to familiarise oneself with the historical literature one is struck by how difficult it was, psychologically, for many Germans to commit genocides. Himmler himself lowered his eyes when he witnessed one of the typical open-air machine-gunning massacres: one of those that so often occurred in the conquered territories. (Much of what is called the Holocaust occurred in the open, relatively far from the villages so as not to frighten the locals.)
Given the awfulness of the work that the killing entailed, Himmler loved the idea of setting up group therapy sessions for his executioners: sessions that were filled as much as possible with a homey atmosphere, food and music, though no alcohol; and some men were relieved of the uglier tasks of killing men, women and children so that, as one diary keeper wrote, ‘they could retain their humanity’.
But the central issue is: If the Jews are not the sole cause of Aryan decline, which is my view, how can the Holocaust be justified?
Believe it or not, there came to be some executioners who were neither monocausalists nor ‘bicausalists A’, but approached ‘bicausalism B’ (see my post of the day before yesterday). On September 17, 1941 the Einsatzgruppe, already overwhelmed by the intensity of its genocidal task, suggested that the extermination of the Jews would not solve all the problems:
Even if it were possible to eliminate 100% of the Jews, we would not eliminate the fundamental danger. The Bolshevik work is carried out by Jews, Russians, Georgians, Armenians, Poles, Latvians, and Ukrainians; the Bolshevik apparatus does not coincide completely with the Jewish population. Under such conditions, we would not achieve the goal of political security if we substituted the main task of destroying the Communist machine for the relatively easy task of eliminating the Jews.[2]
The sticky post on this site links to an article that recommends reading the book that recounts the astronomical genocidal atrocities—a true Holocaust—that the Allies committed on the German people even after 1945: something that Westerners are unaware of because the ubiquitous anti-Aryan propaganda only mentions one of the two holocausts. On the other hand, for the Holocaust deniers, the Jewish Holocaust is a hoax, something that didn’t happen: a myth created by the Jews. But what should we do when a Gentile that allegedly witnessed the Holocaust confronts us with his memories?
Few know that a few hundred British prisoners of war were sent to Auschwitz. One of them was Arthur Dodd. I dare not say that Dodd is to be believed in everything he tells, for at times his story sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie script. But neither can we say that what Dodd tells is a Jewish tale, since ethnically he was English. As the Russians approached Auschwitz Dodd recounts that, in desperation, the guards committed a real atrocity:
SS guards were shouting and whipping a number of Jews who were being forced to throw the carcasses of dozens of their dead comrades into a bonfire. The ground on which the fire was built had been hollowed out and so the bodies and materials were being thrown down to the flames.
Suddenly, Arthur was horrified to see small children being brought into the yard. He felt the bile rise in his throat as the children were kicked and booted into the fire… Arthur staggered back to his hut, the screams of the children still ringing in his ears.[3]
Later Michael Evans, the author of the The Times article, writes: ‘Auschwitz is still the first thing he thinks of every morning’.
I clipped this newspaper story when I lived in Manchester. What to make of these memoirs? The most straightforward answer is that, if Arthur Dodd’s account is true, the mainstream media will never mention the equivalent cases of the other Holocaust, the one the Allies committed that year and up to 1947. (Recall, for example, Tom Goodrich’s account in his book of how the Soviets themselves crucified German babies—literally crucified them—in a Prussian village as their Red Army advanced. )
All this horror, on both sides, could have been avoided if Churchill hadn’t declared war on Hitler, since the latter’s original plan implied non-genocidal Jewish deportation to Madagascar, which could have happened if WW2 hadn’t been declared. Pat Buchanan says this in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.
I am pleased that, in times much more recent than the publication of the Buchanan book, Tucker Carlson has invited a revisionist who sees in Churchill, not Hitler, the real villain of our movie, the West’s darkest hour with its millions of migrants to bastardize the Aryan race. But for our ideology to become more rhetorical for the normie’s Overton window, rather than denying the Jewish Holocaust I think it is more astute the path chosen by Goodrich: to talk about the other Holocaust, the Holocaust that almost nobody talks about.
_____________
[1] Ulm court case against Bernhard Fischer-Schweder, August 29, 1958, Ks 2/57.
[2] RSHA IV-A-1, Report on Operations in the USSR, No. 86, NO-3151.
[3] Michael Evans: ‘An Englishman at Auschwitz’, The Times, 2 November 1998.
