web analytics

Category: Holocaust

Categories
2nd World War Conspiracy theories David Irving Final solution Heinrich Himmler Holocaust Holodomor Red terror Third Reich

New approach to the holocaust

Himmler_advert


If there’s a moral of the story on the recent debate at The Occidental Observer about the so-called “holocaust” that can only be that most white nationalists are cognitively immature. I find it scandalous that I was the only one who linked Greg Johnson’s piece as an important article, as can be ascertained at the bottom of the TOO article (5 trackbacks to “Dealing with the Holocaust”): four trackbacks to this blog and the other one to my nationalist blog in Spanish.

One example is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?”, where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.

Just contrast most of the nationalists’ dogmatic stance on the “holocaust” with the intellectual trajectory of David Irving, who a few years ago acknowledged that at least more than two millions of Jews died in the camps (source, National Alliance News):

According to an article in the extremist leftist Guardian newspaper in Britain, historian David Irving has backtracked on his earlier views about the Holocaust myth and now accepts that the Nazis engaged in mass extermination of Jews in certain camps.

Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallized rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the Second World War and that the “Jewish problem” was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.”

He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland, but goes on to claim that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was fake. “It was not the centre of the killing operations—it has only become a focus because it is the site that is best preserved. Much of what is shown [to] the tourists there is faked postwar—watchtowers, even the famous gas chamber.”

He added: “In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler’s men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year.”

Pressed as to whether this change undermined his previous stance, Irving replied: “It is a crystallization of my view.” Asked if he now accepts there had been a Holocaust against the Jewish people he said he was “not going to use their trade name.”

He added: “I do accept that the Nazis quite definitely, that Heinrich Himmler, organized and directed a program, a clandestine program, for the liquidation of European Jews… and that in 1942-43 alone over 2.5 million Jews were killed in those three camps.” He added that Hitler was “completely in the dark” about the program.

This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.

I find it pathetic that this holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response. If the astronomic amount of time spent by nationalists and non-nationalists in researching paranoid conspiracy theories like 9/11 would have been spent researching real historical facts, like what happened in the Gulag under Stalin’s willing executioners, the tide could have been turned in our favor long ago.

I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).

Categories
2nd World War Holocaust

The Holocaust—Listening to both sides

The controversy at The Occidental Observer about the Holocaust has continued since my last entries in this blog mentioning it. It has now reached 700+ comments at TOO and it might reach 800.

Below I reproduce two opposite book-reviews from Amazon Books about Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides.


Attorney speaks:

As a skeptic of both sides of the Holocaust debate I’ve long hoped for a book that would shed light where there was only heat. Debating the Holocaust comes as close as I can hope for, and it is a remarkable accomplishment.

Rather than writing a review longer than the book itself, I’ll just first note that with Thomas Dalton’s book, the biggest single problem has finally been addressed: that it has been impossible to grasp the big picture of the holocaust because of the incoherence of the story.

The goals of Nazi policy, the means by which it was ordered and carried out, major events and where they happened (nobody really knows where the burial and cremation grounds of Chelmno are), the technical challenges that would come with a mass extermination effort, even something as basic as the death totals; nothing about the Holocaust story is consistent from one source to another. Over the decades figures, testimonies and documents have been exaggerated, reduced, misrepresented, changed or even disappeared, and in many cases with the obvious goal of keeping certain details a mystery so that awkward questions don’t come up (Saul Friedländer: I’m talking to you!). When Dalton writes that he found “a Holocaust story in tatters” he simply states the truth, and it is easy to see why two important historians, Michel De Bouard and Jean-Claude Pressac, remarked that the historical record of the Holocaust is “rotten”.

To deal with this, Dalton introduces a remarkable (and easy!) analytic tool which he calls the death matrix, a technique that combines various tables into a single analytic field that clearly demonstrates the properties of any account of the six alleged extermination camps. It can be done by anybody who has a spreadsheet option on his or her computer. Not unique to Dalton, it’s a common tool in several technical fields, and you have to wonder why anti-revisionist John Zimmerman, who is a professor of accounting and has to use similar tools in transaction analysis, never used it in his various refutations.

For the reader, this means a book where you have to take pen to paper and do some homework of your own, but that is a refreshing change to Holocaust books which don’t just ask but demand that you swallow whatever they say without question.

Dalton’s results when he applies his death matrix are clear, transparent and easily understood, but Dalton clearly states that certain data rests on questionable assumptions and that his use of the tool is preliminary and needs refinement (I could already suggest a revision where Dalton credits Krema II at Auschwitz with cremating 11,000 bodies at a time when it was out of service, the six weeks from the beginning of May through June 12 of 1943). It’s a terrific tool, something that becomes clear when the tables reveal that the combined work of exhumations and cremations at Belzec had no choice but to run at a rate of 92,000 per month. That’s better than 3,000 per day, 125 per hour, a corpse dug out of the ground and thawed and burned to fragments and ground to powder every 30 seconds; and on wooden pyres in the dead of a Polish winter when weather conditions would have frozen the ground rock-solid and rendered many days impossible for work.

That account is ridiculous; whatever the truth is, it’s something else. Why didn’t somebody think of this technique before?

Avoiding the dreary name-calling, Dalton divides the two camps into “traditionalists” and “revisionists”, and then divides the revisionists into the “agitators” and “academics”. Another good idea where ideas are sorely needed; when it comes to the revisionists Dalton intelligently ignores the “agitators” and concentrates on the solid arguments of the academics. Revisionists who have made it some sort of holy crusade to challenge the Holocaust will not be happy with this book. Dalton clearly states that the Holocaust cannot be dismissed as a hoax, a fraud or a conspiracy (the financial exploitation of it and the loathsome criminalization of challenging it are another matter). Something awful happened, but exactly what it was, and how it fits into the even bigger picture of the Second World War is impossible to determine with the history that we have.

As accessible as a book that addresses technical issues can be, Debating the Holocaust would make an excellent high school textbook, teaching young people about the story while challenging them to accept nothing until they’ve applied their own brains to it. Certainly a better choice than The Diary of Anne Frank, a book which has nothing in it about the Holocaust but nevertheless is required (forced?) reading on the subject.

While my review lists five stars, I’m actually giving it four and a half, with half a star taken off for listing a large percentage of the deaths at Majdanek as “natural causes” in one of the tables. This is insensitive to say the least. In their 2003 book on the camp (one of only two studies ever made!) revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf, no defenders of the Holocaust, are themselves aghast at the way some 40,000 people died slow deaths of exposure standing in the open, sewage soaked fields. These are not “natural causes”. As a police worker I know that “Official Indifference” is a crime that American police, fire and rescue workers can be charged with, so even if the Nazis didn’t intend to kill these people they are responsible, at the very least, for mass manslaughter.

With that unfortunate beauty mark addressed, I can finish with a preview of Dalton’s epilogue, which is depressing. Dalton points out that there is an appreciable amount of common ground between traditionalists and revisionists; no academic revisionist has ever denied that tragic atrocities happened, and the best (and bravest) traditionalists have themselves noted that there is something terribly wrong with the history, which suggests that a combined effort between the two camps holds an excellent possibility of finally bringing to light a clear and coherent picture of what the events of the 1940’s really were.

But it ain’t gonna happen. As B’nai Brith director Ian Kadegan ominously crows, “The memory of the Holocaust is central to The New World Order”, and goes on to obscenely call it “Western Civilization’s greatest failure” (that would actually be the Congo Corvée, something that only die-hard Mark Twain fans have heard about). The traditional story of the Holocaust is a multi-billion dollar cash cow that enriches some of the most corrupt institutions on Earth, and has truly become an idolatrous religion that too many people are staked in. If the traditional story falls, not only reputations and livelihoods but power will be lost, for the traditional Holocaust story is used as a club to dictate what morality is by people who have no authority to do so, and to intimidate them not to question that authority.

Which means reading this book may actually qualify as a revolutionary act. The enemies of free speech can exact a price, but they can’t stop you. That’s why the right is called unalienable. Not even God can take it away. Thanks for the book Thomas.



Prosecutor speaks:

While this book definitely raises a few interesting points, the problem with it starts right on the cover. Thomas Dalton does not exist, and thus, has no verifiable Ph.D. or teaching record in any university.


In fact, the evidence suggests that Michael Santomauro, the editorial director of Thesis and Dissertations Press, is probably the author (and he has no Ph.D, meaning the entire description of Thomas Dalton’s “career” is a fabrication). Thesis and Dissertations Press is owned by Castle Hill Publishers, which was founded by a long time Holocaust opponent, Germar Rudolf. So in the interest of full disclosure, when you buy this book, 1/3 of the profits go to Germar Rudolf, whose full-time agenda is to refute the holocaust by any means necessary (an “agitator” in the parlance of this book).

No one can read the things Michael Santomauro has written and believe for a minute that he is a neutral observer simply examining all side of the issue. Mr. Santomauro is the publisher, and probably the author, of this book, and yet, if you go to the last page of reviews, you will find him reviewing his own book without disclosing any of this information (under the title “Banned in 15 countries”). This, at the very least, is intellectual dishonesty, and should cast serious doubt on the “neutral analysis” claim of the book.

So be forewarned, a book with this much deception on the cover is not going to present all sides of the issue fairly. In my opinion, this is a very carefully constructed attack on the holocaust which presents carefully constructed arguments for the holocaust, then skillfully, craftily and systematically takes them apart. The problem is that it does not present all of the evidence for the holocaust, it carefully slants claims about the holocaust, leaves out critical bits of information (such as the fact that over three million of the “six million” Jews who died in World War II concentration camps have been identified by name, and more names are being tracked down and verified each year), and builds very careful straw men (Hitler issued a written order to exterminate the Jews), then knocks them down (can’t find the written order), all while ignoring evidence from mouths of Hitler’s own men that such a program, with or without written orders from Hitler, did exist.

Another example of the “neutrality” of this book: Zyklon B is a pesticide used to kill lice, not to exterminate people. True, but then what are we to make of the statements of Rudolf Hoss, the director of Auschwitz, when he told how they used the Zyklon B to kill people, paraphrased here:

There were 2 bunkers, and between them they held about 2000 people. The doors were screwed shut and solid pellets of Zyklon B were dropped into the chambers through vents, releasing the Zyklon B gas. About one third of the victims died immediately (presumably those closest to the vents), and everyone within was dead in about 20 minutes.

If Zyklon B was not used to kill people, then why did the director of Auschwitz give a very detailed account of how they did use it to kill people? Was he also conspiring to promote the “myth” of the holocaust?

It is true that there are some problems with some of the things said about the holocaust, but the problems are not as glaring as this book makes out. It is possible, for example that only 4 or 5 million Jews died, not 6 million (as 3 million are already documented), but would that really make this less of a holocaust if Hitler and his regime only succeeded in hunting down and murdering 4 or 5 million? While there may be some over-estimates on the part of the Holocaust survivors (not actually proven, by the way), there is extreme under-estimates taking place in this book.

Just beware, as this book is not even remotely as fair and balanced as the 5 star reviews here would lead us to believe. Only those who don’t actually know the facts of the holocaust will be swayed by this book. To those aware of the independent research, filmed and photographic evidence, and the true historical record found in hundreds, maybe thousands of well-researched reports, this comes off as nothing more than one of the most carefully crafted attacks on the holocaust ever to make it into print.

Although I’m not sure this book deserves it, it will be interesting to see if anyone takes the time to do a thorough rebuttal. I, for one, would love to see that, if only to eliminate, once and for all, the idea that this book is even remotely neutral, balanced or fair.



My comment:

In the Amazon Books site a scholarly controversy continued in the comment section of this particular review.

Incidentally, I won’t discuss the details in the comment section of this blog. I am no expert on the topic and have not even read Dalton’s book.

Taking into account my courtroom analogy in my aggregations at The Occidental Observer, my sole purpose here is to show what would be an actual “listening” of the evidence or lack thereof on both sides of the debate. (The debate at TOO is replete of personal attacks and even ad hominems.)

Those who want to debate the details of Holocaust claims and counter-claims may be interested to visit the Amazon reviews of the book and post their opinions there. Here my only point is to show how difficult it is for the layman to side either the “attorney” or the “prosecutor” without actual listening to their whole, technical presentation in a “courtroom” (something that could take months as in the O.J. Simpson trial and even that is no assurance of a fair verdict).

Categories
Heinrich Himmler Holocaust Holodomor Red terror Ukraine

Time to use the spear, not the shield!

The recent exchange between Greg Johnson and Hadding Scott on the Holocaust is proof that at least some revisionists are deceiving themselves. Take a look at this:

A rational person who has agreed to the common understanding of what the word Holocaust means, and has given a little thought to the matter, would have to concede that Anne Frank was a victim [of] a wartime disease epidemic. The same kind of disease epidemic has occurred in many European wars… [—Hadding, way below]

So Hadding is saying that Anne Frank died of a natural cause, typhus epidemics, omitting to say that her body defenses were weakened as a result of being interned at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp!

Enjoy the whole exchange and pay special attention to Hadding’s semantic flim-flam (no ellipsis added between unquoted comments):

♣

Hadding said…

Holocaust revisionism primarily challenges the facts of the Holocaust narrative, usually focusing on death totals and techniques of extermination.

I am not aware of any important revisionist focused, as Greg Johnson says, on quibbling about death-totals. Jews always would like to say that revisionists are just quibbling about numbers, but serious revisionism has a much more radical criticism than that.

Second, Holocaust death totals are never going to be revised to zero.

The position of Professor Robert Faurisson is precisely that the Holocaust death-toll is zero. He is able to say this because he begins by defining the word Holocaust: an alleged program of the German government to kill all of Europe’s Jews. There is no evidence for such a program.

The question of how Jews died is crucial. Jews that died of typhus, like Ann Frank, are not legitimately counted as Holocaust victims, because in their deaths they were not intended victims of any program.

How is the German government supposed to have killed Jews in this program? Usually at least 4 million are claimed to have been killed in gas-chambers, either with HCN gas (Auschwitz-Birkenau) or diesel exhaust (Aktion Reinhardt). The other methods by which Jews are alleged to have been killed, hanging and shooting, cannot be unambiguously represented as part of a program to kill all Jews: when the Einsatzgruppen shot Jews on the Eastern Front in retaliation for guerrilla actions, or Jews in camps were hanged for sabotage, it did not have to be interpreted as the expression of an intention to kill all Jews. The gas-chamber story however is unambiguous. The gas-chamber story therefore is the Holocaust.

Because the gas-chamber story is the Holocaust, we can say that the death-toll of the Holocaust is precisely zero.

You can say that a lot of Jews died during the war (although Mark Weber becomes very irresponsible when he concedes that “millions” lost their lives) but there is not one that can be demonstrated to have been gassed. More to the point: there is no alleged homicidal gas-chamber that withstands forensic scrutiny.

When a criminal accusation has no evidence to support it, when key evidence ostensibly supporting the accusation turns out to be fraudulent, we take the position that the accusation is false.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I deal with your points in section 5 above [Greg refers to his recent featured article at The Occidental Observer], in the third point of the bulleted list. Claiming that the Holocaust did not happen on the basis of a strict definition of the term (the plan to kill all Jews) strikes ordinary people as morally obtuse quibbling about definitions, which ignores the facts that (1) Jews were singled out for especially harsh treatment by the Germans, and (2) countless innocent Jews lost their lives because of that policy. In the end, that is all one need claim to say that the Jews suffered their greatest tragedy at the hands of the Third Reich during World War II. Even if the genocidal intent, the gas chambers, etc. go the way of human soap and lampshades, that fact is never going to disappear, so it is indeed fortunate that the fortunes of White Nationalism do not depend on Holocaust revisionism.

Hadding said…

The principle that a clear discussion has to begin with a clear definition of what is being discussed derives from Socrates and Plato. Staying in the realm of mushy, malleable terms, one can never really resolve anything.

Anybody who thinks that establishing what is to be proven is “morally obtuse quibbling” needs to be excluded from the discussion of adults.

I don’t care that most people’s thought-processes are mush. I am not going to compromise for them. You can’t really win those people anyway, until you control their TV shows. I am interested in the people that are able to think.

And there are White Nationalists who are not Holocaust revisionists. Indeed, there are some who hope that the revisionists are wrong.

I wonder who those people could be? The few such individuals that I have encountered over the years were very crude. To think this way would seem to require the combination of unusual degrees of thoughtlessness and callousness. I imagine such a person to be a low-grade criminal-type.

Is this a type of person whose opinion we should value?

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I should have said “normal” people rather than “ordinary” people. Normal people think that reducing the Holocaust death total to zero merely by stipulating a particular definition of the Holocaust is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions.

I think it is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions, which is something different than dealing with historical facts, namely the facts that the Germans singled the Jews out for harsh treatment and that many innocent Jews died because of these policies. That is the worst thing that ever happened to the Jews, and it will continue to be a millstone around our people’s neck until we deal with the real sources of Jewish power and white weakness.

Hadding said…

My view is that H-revisionism is not part of an intellectually sound defense of WN, whatever soundness H-revisionism might possess as a field of historical research.

You’re going to be dragged into that issue whether you want it or not. To respond that it has no relevance because you’ve drawn an imaginary chalk-line that puts Hitler (“Old Right”) on one side and Greg Johnson (“New Right”) on the other is not going to convince anybody, for one thing because nobody, so far as I know, has ever used the term Old Right that way before. Everybody is going to see you as trying to dodge the issue.

Hadding, I should have said “normal” people rather than “ordinary” people. Normal people think that reducing the Holocaust death total to zero merely by stipulating a particular definition of the Holocaust is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions.

Okay so I am abnormal because I demand clarity?

You said what you meant the first time. Ordinary people means people who don’t do much thinking. The Holocaust story has been able to survive largely because people don’t want to think about it. They would rather agree to give the Jews some money to take away the gory pictures than to investigate whether what is being said is valid or not. It is reprehensible that our thinking class has allowed the Jews to get away with this.

Any intelligent discussion of the matter must begin with a definition of what is being discussed. The fact that a typhus casualty like Anne Frank can be passed off as a famous “victim of the Holocaust” shows that failure to think through what is meant by the word Holocaust, i.e. failure to define the term, is a large part of the problem.

If you reject the proposition that terms have to be defined before a rational discussion can occur then I have to ask from what kind of sorry institution you got your doctorate, because, while you are manifestly able to churn out large quantities of verbiage as needed to meet word-counts and term-paper due-dates, the foundation of clear discourse has somehow been neglected.

Greg Johnson said…

RE “not dealing with the Holocaust” or “running away from the Holocaust”: you are begging the question, since I take pains to argue that WNs do need to deal with the Holocaust, but Holocaust revisionism is not the way to do it.

Hadding said…

since I take pains to argue that WNs do need to deal with the Holocaust, but Holocaust revisionism is not the way to do it.

You advocate a lame conservative response, which means not challenging the assumptions, even when you know that they are false. Idealistic people will have only contempt for this.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, you need to deal with my arguments rather than simply try to stick negative labels on them.

Hadding said…

Since I explained what I meant by conservative rhetoric (not challenging the enemy’s assumptions) it should be pretty much self-evident that this is an accurate description.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I argued at great length what you label “challenging the enemy’s assumptions” (i.e., Holocaust revisionism) is not a winning hand for white nationalism. You don’t challenge that argument. You just try to hang a negative label on it. Well, if this be conservatism, then I’ll make the most of it, since my argument still stands unchallenged. Really, I am disappointed that you can’t come up with something better than this.

1. The distinction between the New Right and the Old Right is real, not imaginary, so it really does not matter what people who are ignorant or indifferent to truth say about it.

2. Google: Anne Frank Holocaust victim.

About 630,000 results come up. Yet you claim that she was not a Holocaust victim because she did not die in a gas chamber, or because the Germans were not trying to kill every Jew on the planet. Sensible people look at that kind of argument and conclude that they are being flim-flammed.

Hadding said…

Back in 2001, a very well-informed gentleman sat me down to explain Holocaust revisionism. The first words out of his mouth were, “No serious revisionist denies that a very large number of innocent Jews died as a result of the Third Reich’s policy of deporting Jews to concentration camps.” I said, “Stop right there. That’s all I need to hear. I didn’t need to hear any more…

That’s pretty stupid Greg. Now for some “morally obtuse quibbling.”

What is a large number of Jews? What is the relationship between the fact that they were deported and the fact that they died? Was it deliberate or accidental? Is what happened to the Jews in this situation a unique event that deserves a special name like “Holocaust” or was it similar to events that befell various other populations in modern times?

I will also say that the omission of the name of the “very well-informed gentleman” is interesting. Who was that man?

Honestly, Greg, I think you are overly sensitive to Jewish suffering. A man tries to tell you what happened and you say, “Stop right there! That’s all I need to hear!”

You need to “step over” that squeamishness and deal with the fact that what happened to Jews in WWII was not unique or special. It was not an attempt to kill all the Jews. Get your head on straight. Then when somebody mentions the Holocaust you can say with serene confidence, “There was no Holocaust.”

Greg Johnson said…

A “serene confidence” won through self-induced imbecility. I’ll pass.

Hadding said…

What you’ve passed on is putting thought ahead of sentimentality. You’ve passed on thinking like a man.

You pretend to be some kind of ideological kin to Jonathan Bowden but you really didn’t grasp what Bowden meant by “stepping over.” Here’s the passage from his speech, Nietzschean Ideas: it’s a short dialog to demonstrate how one ought to respond to moralizing, followed by a statement about what people usually do instead:

You just say, “Liberalism is moral syphilis, and I’m stepping over it.”
“Well I don’t like the sound of that! You sound like a bit of a Fascist to me!” And I’d say, “There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.”

Everyone now adopts a reverse semiotic and runs against what they actually think in order to convince people that don’t agree with them anyway.

You, Greg Johnson, are doing and advocating the opposite of what Jonathan Bowden advocated, even while copying his phrase and pretending to be influenced by him.

Bowden is “stepping over” liberalism as “moral syphilis,” while you embrace and hang on to your squeamishness and even moralize to others that they should be squeamish too.

Bowden asserts that there is “nothing wrong with Fascism,” while you abuse his expression “stepping over” as a rhetorical excuse for distancing yourself from Fascism because you lack the fortitude to side with Bowden. You lack the fortitude to say that there is nothing wrong with Fascism.

You even engage in the “reverse semiotic,” as Bowden calls it, [for] trying to make our enemies’ rhetoric work for us. If Bowden were here, I think he’d be none too pleased with the pretense that you are implementing his ideas.

Greg Johnson said…

I cite one point by Jonathan Bowden that I agree with, and you pop up citing other points where we disagree, and pretend it is somehow a problem with my position. It really is childish.

I agree with Jonathan on the idea that the primary problem of the Holocaust is moral.

I disagree with him RE Fascism: there’s plenty wrong with historical Fascism. We should maintain what is good in it, but we can do better.

No, I am not running a “reverse semiotic”: I am saying what I really believe. So stop bobbing and weaving and making things up and start dealing with the actual argument.

Hadding said…

You and Bowden are utterly opposite. Bowden puts a high value on thinking and masculinity. You represent dodging issues while using some specious excuse.

You are using a reverse semiotic, for example, when you justify your use of the term Holocaust with Google hits. That is not a result of any thinking on your part. You are not authentic, you are not thinking; instead you are trying to operate within the enemy’s rhetoric and assumptions. That is a reverse semiotic.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I accept your confession of bad faith and inability to deal with my arguments.

Hadding said…

Backhanded insults from Greggy:

1. Hadding is not normal.
2. Hadding is morally obtuse.
3. Hadding has “self-induced imbecility.”
4. Hadding speaks in “bad faith.”
5. Hadding is unable to deal with Greggy’s arguments.

I think I’ve dealt very concisely with your slop. Forgive me for not providing excess verbiage for you to nitpick so that you can distract attention from my core points.

Greg Johnson said…

The Google search is a good tool to determine public opinion. If you ask any of our brainwashed brothers and sisters to name one person who died in the Holocaust, I guarantee Anne Frank would top the list. Since these are the people whose minds Holocaust Revisionists presumable wish to liberate, one needs to know what they think.

Now, imagine what kind of figure Hadding cuts when he says, huffily, that Anne Frank did not die in the Holocaust, because (a) she did not die in a gas chamber and the Holocaust is defined as killing Jews in gas chamber, or (b) there was no Holocaust, because the Holocaust means the attempt to kill all Jews, and the Nazis did not do that.

I submit that anyone who took that sort of tack would be seen, correctly, as a flim-flam man. But let me ask some of the other commentators here: what do you think of Hadding’s tactic? Does it free our people of the burden of Holocaust guilt, or does it make revisionists look bad?

Or do you all just ignore him?

Greg Johnson said…

White guilt and self-punishment induced by the Holocaust is a serious impediment to white survival.

So we have to attack this problem. There are basically two ways to do it.

First, one can attack the Holocaust itself via revisionism.

Second, one can attack the psychological and moral roots of the guilt and self-punishment.

The problem with revisionism is that it cannot revise away the fact that the Germans singled Jews out for harsh treatment and a lot of Jews died as a result. The only thing that can be revised away are the lies and myths told about these events after the fact. But no serious revisionist denies these facts, and those facts are Holocaust enough for Jews to be guilt tripping us until the sun burns out.

Does anybody need any clarification of this argument so far? So we need to attack our susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

Exposing the nefarious lies told about these facts does not deal with the problem, because the victims did not tell the lies. The survivors did. And the victims will still be pitied, even if the survivors are revealed to be contemptible liars and swindlers.

So again, we need to focus on immunizing ourselves to susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it, or how they were killed, or the motives for the killings, or the stories told about the killings long after the war—which are the subjects of revisionism.

Even if not a single hair on an innocent Jewish head were harmed in the Third Reich, whites would be guilt-tripping and self-flagellating over slavery, the American Indians, and the passenger pigeon.

So again, we need to deal with the moral and psychological roots of the problem.

Hadding said…

Since this is a swipe specifically directed at me, let me just see if I can give a clearer response than I’ve given already.

Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it…

It’s not about what word is to be used. You’re not grasping at all what is accomplished by defining the word Holocaust before we discuss it. If we define our terms, we gain the possibility of clear discussion. From clear discussion you can get clarification of thoughts, so that people may end up with a radically different understanding of a matter as a result of discussing it.

Most people think that “Holocaust” means the attempt by the German government to kill all the Jews. In particular, they understand this to mean killing with gas-chambers. That definition has implications. We can reasonably ask whether various aspects of what passes for the Holocaust make sense under that definition.

How does a typhus epidemic make sense as part of a government’s attempt to kill all the Jews, when the epidemic could not be limited to Jews? A rational person who has agreed to the common understanding of what the word Holocaust means, and has given a little thought to the matter, would have to concede that Anne Frank was a victim a wartime disease epidemic. The same kind of disease epidemic has occurred in many European wars, as far back as the Great Plague of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. But death in a disease-epidemic is really not what we mean we say “the Holocaust.”

What has been more powerful than any other piece of “evidence” in securing popular belief in the Holocaust have been the films and images of emaciated people, dead and alive, from concentration camps captured by the Western Allies. Then you find out that the places where those films were made are no longer claimed to have been killing centers, and that what the images show is the effect of a typhus epidemic. So, since we have defined the term Holocaust as a deliberate attempt to kill all the Jews, we suddenly find that what has convinced most people that the Holocaust occurred is really not evidence for it at all. Those images have been used as spurious evidence to convince the public that the Holocaust story, specifically the gas-chamber story, was true, when a little bit of information and rational consideration reveals that they prove no such thing.

A reasonable person at this point may understand that he has seen essentially no evidence for this claim called “the Holocaust” that he always accepted as true.

Definition of terms is the prerequisite for clear discourse. Sometimes when you clarify the meaning of a word and compare the meaning to specific examples, you find out that what the word was supposed to signify doesn’t exist. This is not “flim-flam”: this is philosophy.

Greg Johnson said…

[responding to another commenter]

1. Yes, I argue that “Whites should concede that Jews suffered during World War II.” It is true, and no serious revisionist denies it, and that is all Jews need to keep playing violins and tugging at the heartstrings of morbidly conscientious whites until we cease to exist.

2. You then state:

“then you go on to believe that this warrants the continued application of ‘The Holocaust’, as if there was something exceptional about Jewish suffering and as if among all of the peoples that suffered in that war, they are so clearly individuated as a people as to warrant the dignity of a separate name and distinct narrative for their experience.”

I think there is a major confusion here.

First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust” and pretending that such autistic semantic quibbles matter.

Second, the major point of my article is that Whites need to stop caring so much about dead Jews. We need to stop thinking like Jews (i.e., in a Judeo-centric way) and come up with a white-centered perspective on genocide, because whites are being destroyed right now by soft, cold genocide. Moreover, Jews are the major architects of that genocide. Jews have (and continue) to subject whites to genocide on a far larger scale than anything that happened to the Jews in WW II. Once we start thinking that way, we are immune to the Holocaust guilt trip.

Third, everything is unique metaphysically speaking. But everything is also comparable to everything else. Jews insist that the Holocaust is both unique (which is trivially true) and incommensurable (which is false). That is just a projection of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, which the rest of humanity needs to identify and reject. Jews can sell this absurdity because they have the power and money to do so. We need to immunize our people so they stop buying it.

3. You are misrepresenting my views on Israel. Philosophically speaking, if ethnonationalism is true and good, it applies to Jews too. I think we need to be consistent and principled on that point.

But that does not imply any sort of political support of Israel: no aid, no alliances, nothing. Of course it doesn’t exclude them either. For it is conceivable that a WN state might find such things to be in their interests (really in their interests).

As for any relations between WNs today and Jews: I make it very clear that the European nationalists who suck up to Jews are fools who are being played. Jews are the most powerful people on the planet. White nationalists have no power at all. Nobody makes alliances with the powerless. So when Jews try to establish friendly ties with White Nationalists, there can be only one agenda: the subversion of White Nationalism.

Hadding said…

First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust”…

I have explained very clearly that this is not what I am about. I define terms so that they can be discussed intelligently.

This accusation of merely trying to change what things are called as a kind of “flim-flam” is really projection on your part.

♣

Read the 500+ responses to Greg Johnson’s piece at TOO here.

As to whether or not millions of Jews died as a result of the “harsh treatment” they received in the Third Reich, this is my strategy: Stop using revisionism as a shield against the Jews’ accusations (“I didn’t do it!”). Use your spear instead (“You started the massive killing of white civilians, fucking kikes!”). As explained in my response to Greg in the above-linked thread:

So we need to rethink the issue and find a new way. [—Greg Johnson]

The “new way” is so obvious. Forget revising the Holocaust story. Focus on what the Jews actually did: Yagoda killed more innocent people than those attributed to Himmler.

As someone who used to comment at TOO [Wandrin] has said: Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933: the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

Tens of millions killed in the first industrial scale mass murder in history from 1917 onwards—the Red Terror and War Communism under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership long before Stalin—culminating in the deliberate starvation of six million Ukrainians in 1932 as revenge for past anti-Jewish pogroms. Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

Trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours have gone into creating a global memorial to the Holocaust—films, books, indoctrination of millions of school children, countless museums—and absolutely nothing to commemerate the tens of millions murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks? Not only a Holocaust in its own right but the primary cause of the subsequent Fascist reaction they say came out of inherent evil of the Aryan nature: a position that would be impossible to sustain if Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik holocaust was more widely known.

So, compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights.

Every single penny they spent on building Holocaustianity then works for us. Every film, every book, every museum highlights their denial of the Bolshevik holocaust and the value they place on non-Jewish dead: Zero.

Use this to destroy their moral authority first and then their power to enforce taboos…

Time to use the spear, not the shield!

Categories
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Conspiracy theories Constantinople Holocaust Judeo-reductionism

Byzantine discussions at Majority Rights

Monocausalism again!

Now that I’ve been called Jew for the third time, this occasion for rejecting conspiracy theories such as those imagined about John F. Kennedy’s assassination (in an Occidental Observer thread where I also dared to mention 9/11 in the context of Holocaust denialism/revisionism), a comment at Majority Rights on the single Jewish-cause hypothesis caught my attention.

Precisely the Majority Rights writer who last year labeled me “Jew” in a featured article for my skepticism about 9/11 conspiracy theories (search “J Richards” in this entry) has been given admin powers at Majority Rights. A couple of days ago he abused such powers and deleted a comment of someone who hilariously scoffed at Richards’ monocausalism.

Admin powers to a single Jewish causer, at a major nationalist site? What a shame…

Since I think in Spanish, my dominion of the English language is but a fraction of the mastery of the English language that you can read at Majority Rights. Yet I would never, ever exchange my simple, straightforward honesty for the pointless sophistication that in Spain we label as discusiones bizantinas (in reference to the pointless, ultra-sophisticated theological discussions in ancient Constantinople).

What’s the point of authoring in-depth articles on Heidegger’s ontology while at the same time you believe in conspiratorial nonsense that any High Scholl kid can debunk by merely reading Skeptical Inquirer? Take a look at the Occidental Observer thread on the Holocaust I referred to above and search for my recent aggregations to see what I mean.

Categories
Christendom Civil war Energy / peak oil Eschatology Feminized western males Holocaust Justice / revenge Real men William Pierce

On ostriches and real men

Greg Johnson on the Holocaust:

1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.

It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.

2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”

The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.

So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”

The above are only the first paragraphs of a long article at The Occidental Observer. I would recommend reading it all: a sound answer to, say, Carolyn Yeager’s stance on the Holocaust.

However, I must take issue with Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:

1. The dollar will crash soon

2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, looting and eventually famine in some places

3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the tension won’t be solved soon after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in the most ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the US

4. To boot, in due time the racial clash will converge with a peak oil crisis that, by the end of the century, has a chance of killing the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (“Billions Will Die—We Will Win!”)

The reason I believe that most nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand is because in the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as the bourgeoisie of today care. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors committed to the 14 words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future is for the bloodthirsty, not for the Alt Righters.”

Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for our people is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success. This is why these days I am reproducing, and will continue to reproduce, the articles of William Pierce: the only intellectual who has dared to write openly and unabashedly about exterminationist pro-whitism—exterminationism with or without the help of Nature.

Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with us on moral grounds ought to open their minds. They have closed minds because they still have to live for decades in a city plagued with non-white swarms and almost no whites (as I have). You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent peak-oil crisis. Please take your heads off the sand! After all, any of this could potentially unleash a racial crisis of truly biblical proportions even considered as an independent factor. I believe Guillaume Faye will be proven right: the convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”

Johnson and the rest of nationalists who are unwilling to see the storm that is coming are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming fighting in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:

We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with Rome before battle, wholly supported by the father and willing to sacrifice our lives (and millions, if not billions of other lives) for the good of our people.

Categories
Conspiracy theories Holocaust Psychiatry Psychology

Popular Mechanics on 9/11

Ever since in an article of a white nationalist blogsite I was called “a Jew” and that my “behavior indicates that he’s a Jew” (by “behavior” the author meant my criticism of the truther movement), I realized that truthers suffer from huge psychological issues. For example, a commenter in that article’s thread who has the Truth Movement as a sort of litmus test for what he believes is the true nationalist, stated that the other “‘WN’ bloggers… are probably posting from Tel Aviv.”

While demonstrating that I am not a Jew is quite easy in these times of DNA tests, what I found disturbing is the notion that those who strongly disagree with truthers must be Jews, or even conspiracists themselves.

The following excerpts, taken from James B. Meigs’ foreword and afterword of Debunking 9/11 Myths corroborate that truthers are a little paranoid to say the least. Meigs is, technically, our foe—he writes as if “racism” and “anti-Semitism” were something wrong. Nonetheless, I find his arguments demystifying conspiracy theories compelling (no ellipsis added):




Foreword

Popular Mechanics set out to investigate conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in late 2004, just as those claims were emerging from the swamps of extremist websites and radical Islamist organizations. We had no idea how much trouble we were about to stir up. Our first magazine article on the topic, which appeared in the March 2005 issue, closely examined the major scientific, military, aeronautical, and engineering-based claims commonly cited as evidence that 9/11 was, as conspiracy theorists like to say, an inside job. Our investigation found no evidence in support of the conspiracy claims.

The article unleashed a flood of criticisms and accusations from those supporting such theories. These attacks ranged from the preposterous (it was said our magazine had published this investigation on orders from a cabal of Masons and Illuminati) to alarming (death threats were referred to our security department). Clearly, we had touched a nerve. The article quickly became the most widely read story in the history of Popular Mechanics’ Web site, with over 7.5 million views. (A detailed account of the reaction to our article, and what that reaction says about the conspiracy movement, can be found in the original afterword to this book on page 121 [see below].)

A team of Popular Mechanics reporters and editors then started work on a far more detailed book-length version of the report. By the time the first edition of this book was published in the summer of 2006, the 9/11 conspiracy furor was reaching a tipping point. The flurry of books on the topic had grown into an avalanche, with certain writers, such as former Claremont School of Theology professor David Ray Griffin, building a thriving cottage industry around the topic. Conspiracy fans had, with Orwellian overtones, taken to calling themselves “the 9/11 Truth Movement,” or simply “truthers.” Extremist talk radio programs such as The Alex Jones Show pushed the issue nonstop. And a video pastiche of conspiracy theories, a quasi-documentary known as Loose Change, was becoming an Internet sensation.

Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 project represented one of the relatively few attempts by mainstream journalists to grapple seriously with the conspiracy theory claims. So it was telling that most conspiracy theorists quickly decided that Popular Mechanics too was part of the conspiracy. In their minds, all our research could therefore be rejected a priori. We had run head on into a worldview that some experts call “conspiracism.” It is a mind-set that insists on reaching a predetermined conclusion regardless of what information is presented. Any facts that don’t fit the conspiracy paradigm need to be explained away. Since 2004, leading 9/11 theorist David Ray Griffin has written seven books and edited two others on the subject of 9/11. He devoted a chapter in his book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, to explain why, in his view, the 9/11 reporting by Popular Mechanics and other mainstream journalists is invalid.

Griffin’s book devotes many pages to the idea that Popular Mechanics and our parent company, the Hearst Corporation, are somehow implicated in the vast conspiracy he sees behind 9/11. He digs up century-old controversies and finds tenuous links between the magazine’s staff and various government officials. But he never explains how a magazine—much less a major corporation—could possibly convince its employees to help cover up the most notorious mass murder in our nation’s history. Popular Mechanics has close to 30 editorial staffers and dozens of freelance contributors. Does Griffin imagine that whenever we hire new editors I bring them into a secret bunker and initiate them into an ultraclandestine society for world domination? Why wouldn’t such prospective employees run screaming from our building? In the years since we began our work on 9/11 conspiracy theories, a number of our staffers have moved on to other jobs. What would stop them from revealing a conspiracy that, if true, would be one of the biggest journalistic scoops in history? Did we swear them all to lifetime secrecy? As with so many conspiracy claims, the whole elaborate fantasy becomes practically laughable on close examination.

The original Popular Mechanics article addressed 16 of the most common 9/11 conspiracy claims. The first edition of this book expanded that list by four, and added much more detail. As a result, many of the more adept theorists simply moved on to new theories, or shifted their focus to issues that our team had not covered as deeply. For example, at the time we published the first edition, there was still no definitive account of why World Trade Center 7—which was not hit by planes, only damaged by debris—also collapsed. Not surprisingly, as the truther community moved away from talk about missiles and pods, it began focusing obsessively on elaborate theories concerning WTC 7. (With the benefit of much more detailed engineering analysis, this edition addresses—and debunks—those WTC 7 claims in depth.)

It is hard to argue without facts. And yet that is the position in which 9/11 conspiracists increasingly find themselves. One by one, the key factual underpinnings of their theories have been demolished. But still they argue on, their passionate conviction undiminished.

In the end, the truther community’s tendency toward unintentional self-parody has perhaps done as much to undermine its credibility as has the work of Popular Mechanics. Just when the conspiracy movement seemed to be making real headway toward deeply influencing American culture, a funny thing happened: it began to turn into a punch line. South Park offered a brutal parody of the conspiracist worldview in an episode called “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.” Comedian Jon Stewart started tweaking truthers on The Daily Show, at one point holding up a sign reading “9/11 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB.” And, in a common-sense answer to the vast legion of conspiracy-oriented websites, an assortment of sharp, and often satirical, blogs has emerged to challenge the truthers on their own turf. In particular, the blog Screw Loose Change offers devastating analysis of the truther community, and links to point-by-point rebuttals to the claims advanced in Loose Change.

Of course, conspiracy theories involving 9/11 will never fully go away. And a book like this, no matter how widely reported or carefully updated, will never convince the most dedicated conspiracists. But, on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it is important to have a clear, objective, and thorough response to the consistently false and deeply malicious claims of the conspiracy movement.

New York City
2011

Afterword

On February 7, 2005, I [James Meigs] became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs—which calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement”—was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published.

We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to “radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth,” called me “James Meigs the Coward and Traitor.” Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail:

YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!

In a few short weeks, Popular Mechanics had gone from being a 100-year-old journal about science, engineering, car maintenance, and home improvement to being a pivotal player in a global conspiracy on a par with Nazi Germany. Not all the responses were negative, of course. One visitor to our Web site, after plowing through dozens of angry comments, left a supportive post that included this astute observation:

Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.

As the hate mail poured in and articles claiming to have debunked the magazine’s analysis proliferated online, we soon learned to identify the key techniques that give conspiracy theorists their illusion of coherence.

Marginalization of Opposing Views

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests…”

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.

Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: “The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial [Post-script note of 2018: Presently I don’t believe this belongs to conspiratorial thinking] and the various crank theories of physics). All the ‘evidence’ for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.”

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don’t yet understand should not be surprising.

A good example is the conspiracist fascination with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Since the 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane, only by the debris of the North Tower, investigators weren’t sure at first just how or why it collapsed hours after the attacks. A scientist (or for that matter, a journalist or historian) might see that gap in our knowledge as an opportunity for further research (see “WTC 7: Fire and Debris Damage,” page 53). In the conspiracy world, however, even a hint of uncertainty is a chance to set a trap. If researchers can’t “prove” exactly how the building fell, they say, then there is only one other possible conclusion: Someone blew it up.

♣

My comment:

Meigs’ afterword goes on for other ten pages but the excerpts quoted above give the picture: a psychological analysis of the truther mentality goes to the core to understand the movement. For instance, this “Someone blew WTC 7 up” is exactly what I call “paleologic” modes of mentation, and illustrated it with a classic example by a psychiatrist: “If the Greeks are afflicted by epidemics, it is because Phoebus wants to punish Agamemnon.” (“Paleologism” is the subject of some chapters of my book.)

Re the Scientific American statement about “holocaust denial” cited above even Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) who has authored over a hundred articles relating to holocaust claims, has acknowledged that “it cannot be disputed” that “millions [of Jews] were forced from their homes; millions lost their lives” (listen the April 25, 2012 “Mark Weber Report: Holocaust Deceit, Remembrance and Reality”).

Contrary to what WN truthers claim, I believe that rejecting 9/11 conspiracy theories, and seriously considering the new approach to holocaust studies represented by Irmin Vinson, Mark Weber and David Irving are the mark of the mature nationalist.

Categories
Civil war Ethnic cleansing Feminized western males Harold Covington Holocaust Justice / revenge William Pierce

Just an email

Or:

Where is the Pierce of the 21st century?



Mark:

In his most recent article, “New Right vs. Old Right” Greg Johnson said:

The North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide… For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. [Chechar’s note: see e.g., here] That spirit is what we reject.

While I am closer to David Irving, Mark Weber and Matt Parrott about the so-called “holocaust” than Pierce and most people in the movement, I am tempted to write a short rebuttal to Johnson’s piece because:

1. Fascist and National Socialist party politics would become handy after the crash (cf. Covington)

2. Totalitarianism could be useful for a while to completely eradicate The Enemy and all of our Enemy Worldview after the ethnostate is founded

3. Terrorism is imperative: Without a little revenge (Rope Day) no hard lesson will be learnt by deracinated whites

4. Imperialism will be a must. After the astronomic blunder of exporting Western technology to non-Western nations, some of which are nuclear by now, the only way to make sure that Caucasians will survive with such aggressive competitors is to conquer entire continents for our white children, starting e.g. with Africa and Latin America

5. Comparatively humane genocide—e.g., by separating nonwhite males from nonwhite females, thus preventing mass reproduction—will be unavoidable if such continents are to be fully conquered (as was unavoidable when the Anglo-Saxons conquered your precious lands).

Tempted to write a refutation I said, but these days that I want to study Gibbon seriously don’t have time for a formal rebuttal to Johnson’s reactionary, non-revolutionary article. Nonetheless, I’m so fed up by those unbelievable cheers that his article got in the commentariat section that something must be said anyway. Would you like to write an in-depth article or should I just publish at WDH this email?

We need someone of the stature of William Pierce to write a proper rebuttal to Johnson’s piece. Where the hell are Pierce’s intellectual followers, Mark? Gosh! I only have a couple of years in the movement and it looks to me like the new breed of white nationalists are a sort of typical feminized bourgeois males, unfit for the tough job coming ahead (cf. what Breivik has recently said about the currency crash that’s just around the corner).

Is this a fair appraisal of 21st century White Nationalism?

C.

Categories
Amerindians Aztecs Civilisation (TV series) Deranged altruism Holocaust Holodomor Kenneth Clark Liberalism Sexual degeneracy Universalism

Revisiting Carl Sagan

How frustrating! I’ve finished the reading of my marked paragraphs of both Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man and Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, both of which I had read in the 1990s. But when I tried to use my English copy of Cosmos to write this very entry (I reread my Spanish copy) I found that it’s no longer in my library. I have no choice but to use my translated copy of Cosmos and paraphrase back to English what Sagan wrote.

But first I must say that, before I became conscious of the West’s darkest hour, both popularizers of science, Bronowski (1908-1974) and Sagan (1934-1996), were my heroes. Although they are not my heroes anymore, I still believe that the TV series and the accompanying books of The Ascent of Man and Cosmos are must viewing and reading, but only for the Jew-wise adults with ethnic values firmly established. So here we go.

Bronowski was obviously Jewish. But I discovered today, in Wikipedia’s article of Carl Sagan, that Sagan was born in Brooklyn to a Ukrainian Jewish family!

Yesterday, and I mean before today’s discovery, when I finished the rereading of the printed version of both Cosmos and The Ascent of Man it surprised me that, for white people’s interests, some of Sagan’s personal views were even more noxious than Bronowski’s famous little speech at Auschwitz.

Kenneth Clark shows us that demoralizing a people is crucial for the eventual twilight of their civilization. In one of the thirteen programs Bronowski made a dramatic scene in Auschwitz, but only to defend his people: something very human that I can understand. In The Ascent of Man Bronowski didn’t mention what the Jews had done at the Holodomor, where more innocent people were killed than in Auschwitz. This omission is easily explainable taking into account that Bronowski’s main concern was what was good for the Jews. But in my opinion what Sagan wrote in Cosmos demoralize the white peoples in a more toxic, albeit subtle way.

For those who, like me, have reviewed the Spanish chroniclers of the 16th century together with the evidence provided by anthropology, it’s all too clear that the Aztecs were a society composed of serial killers. They even sacrificed and cannibalized their own children—see the chapter of my book Day of Wrath demonstrates the veracity this claim. Conversely, in chapter 12 of Cosmos Sagan painted a completely Manichean view about the Conquest of Mexico, praising the Aztecs for their amazing knowledge of astronomy and depicting the Spanish as brutal conquerors. Even worse: Sagan used the Conquest of Mexico as a paradigm of what the future conquest of space ought never be. Of course, Sagan omitted any mention of the extremely dark side of the Aztec culture.

But even worse for the white people’s self-confidence were Sagan’s pronouncements in the thirteenth, final chapter of Cosmos, “Who speaks for Earth?” I refer to the book, not to the TV series. Sagan almost puts sexual repression of our children in the same category of the crimes against humanity. (Again, it’s a pity that I only have the Spanish translation, even though it’s a deluxe, 20 x 25 cm. book.) He actually says that premarital sex for our adult children is healthy because it prevents society from becoming violent! (See the opposite axiological approach in a William Ventvogelp piece that I rebaptized as “Lycanthropy”.)

But the most offensive passage of the book version of Cosmos is that, when Sagan dared to mention diverse cultures and ethnic groups, he immediately said that we must amplify our sense of loyalty—and include all humanity in it! And Sagan added that rich nations are obliged to share their wealth with the poor ones! (I ignore the page number of these outrageous sentences in the English version, but in the Spanish translation it appears on pages 338-339.)

It is quite interesting to compare both Bronowski’s and Sagan’s TV series and books with Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation, which I’ll assess in the next entries. Civilisation, aired in 1969 at the United Kingdom, was the mother series of both The Ascent of Man and Cosmos. Interesting, I say, because unlike Bronowski and Sagan, Lord Clark had no Jewish ancestry.

Categories
Abraham (patriarch) Alexander the Great Alice Miller Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Archeology Carl Gustav Jung Carthaginians Child abuse Christendom Ethnic cleansing God Hannibal Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves - book) Holocaust Human sacrifice Infanticide Lloyd deMause Maxfield Parrish Mayas Neanderthalism Old Testament Philosophy of history Polybius Pre-Columbian America Prehistory Pseudoscience Psychiatry Psychohistory Psychology Stefan Zweig Thebes

Translation of pages 543-609 of “Hojas susurrantes”

Boas

Note of September 2017: I have removed this text because a slightly revised version of it is now available in print within my book Day of Wrath.

Categories
Conspiracy theories Holocaust Israel / Palestine

9/11: White nationalist paranoia





“We believe whatever we want to believe”

—Demosthenes




Further to my May 7, 2011 piece “Oh silly truthers…”

In the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the irrational will to believe whatever we want to believe in the nationalist movement.

I’d be delighted that Mossad, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, orchestrated the attacks. That could certainly boost legitimacy to our agenda among non-nationalist whites. But my cognitive processes are not dissociated enough from reality to make such a gigantic leap of faith and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

My field of expertise is not racialism or politics but deep psychology, especially the trauma model of mental disorders caused by poor parenting. How did I become dragged into that field? It’s a long story. But for the moment let me confess that I am a triple apostate: since my teenage years I gave up Christianity, then a cult, Eschatology, and finally a pseudoscience, parapsychology (for a brief summary see here). The whole spiritual odyssey to give up faith in these beliefs destroyed my life, as many other lives are being destroyed among those who fall in destructive cults as a defense mechanism resulting from a failed intent to escape from the abuse at home.

That’s why I am indebted to Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Alcock and many other skeptics of the paranormal who taught me how to think critically about extreme claims, whether religious, paranormal or conspiratorial. The last time I saw them, in a 1994 Seattle conference, I had the pleasure to experience a handshake from Carl Sagan, author of The Demon-Haunted World, a book that encourages laypeople to learn critical thinking. During that event I also attended a conference debunking the conspiracy theories about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Hadn’t all of these skeptics vaccinated my mind against magical thinking I’d still be immersed in it. Unfortunately, only through a dark night of the soul it’s possible to realize that we believe whatever we want to believe, and that those beliefs are not always rational or based on fact. Which means that the truthers in the nationalist movement won’t ever make an honest effort to listen the other side: they are forfeiting their dark night.

I gave up paranormality after more than fifteen years of belief in the paranormal precisely because at one point of my live, from 1990 to 1995, I made a serious effort to listen to those skeptical scholars who held diametrically opposed views of my cherished beliefs. Many white nationalists are not that honest; not even close to a mile. They won’t ever use such amount of time to listen to the other side.

Not all white nationalists are truthers of course (see e.g., this splendid summary by Ted Sallis published yesterday on how America became a madhouse after 9/11). But a substantial segment of the nationalist population believes in nuts like those ridiculed in this video.

Let me recontextualize what I’m trying to say. I admire Hitler and the Nazis. For Third Reich sympathizers like me the big question is, Were Jews slaughtered in World War 2? If Irmin Vinson’s approach to the so-called holocaust represents a quantum leap forward from mere denialism, a denialism almost ubiquitous in white nationalism, I believe it’s high time to apply the same flawless logic to the tragic events of a decade ago.

But most nationalists are no match to Vinson’s honesty…



Postscript of September 14

A featured author is now saying at Majority Rights that because I wrote this entry I must be… a Jew! After days of controversy he clings to his belief. He supports the claim that I am Jewish on the basis… of my criticism of the truth movement!

Well, this is magical thinking to be sure, or the deductive fallacy to use more academic language.

This is how paranoids and paranoiacs reason: If something major happens in the political world (e.g., the assassination of a president; an Islamic terrorist attack) there must be a conspiracy involving someone in the American government. If a critic is skeptical of any of these conspiracy theories, he himself must be part of the conspiracy (e.g., a Jewish blogger pretending to be a non-Jew).

Naturally, since paranoid modes of thought are endemic at Majority Rights I won’t ever comment there again. But I decided to write this postscript to show how this affaire corroborates my view that there is indeed a flaw in the white nationalist psyche.

Fortunately, not every nationalist suffers from paranoid delusions, as proven in the Johnson article that I republished here, and in the comments by Matt in this entry’s thread. It’s a pity though that those who subscribe to Aristotelian modes of thought are a minority in the movement.