There is an important dispute. I wish there were a way to deal with the arguments without making it personal. I don’t care about the personal stuff myself and have no intention of wading into that part of this disagreement.
In looking to the arguments, my sentiment is that Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power. There is a real-world example that seems to back up this position. In Greece, the NS-like Golden Party didn’t make revisionism part of their message to my knowledge, and Golden Dawn won power.
Maybe I have a false impression, but many revisionists seem to regard revisionism as so important they comes across to me like they want WNists to lead with revisionism. They come across like they want WNists to lead with revisionism in their appeals to persuade people rather than lead with messages people are likely to perceive as more relevant to their lives and concerns. If this isn’t true, revisionists might benefit from fine-tuning their message.
I can see where many people might consider revisionism necessary in the sense that the enemy will always make it necessary whether anyone likes it or not.
The question is what to do about it?
The GD leader Nikos Michaloliakos does not concede the essential truth of the narrative, but neither does he come right out and say “there was no holocaust.” Michaloliakos does not say this. He speaks in terms of 1) exaggerations, and 2) the fact that Jews were not the only group who suffered war crimes (an seeming implicit acknowledgment there were crimes against them), and 3) the Allies also committed war crimes, and 4) there were no gas chambers. While all of that adds up to a major challenge to the official narrative, again, I didn’t see where he used words like “the holocaust did not happen.” So if that’s the standard revisionists are demanding, absolute blanket denial in unequivocal terms, it does not appear even the NS-like, fascist GD meets that standard.
I got a news flash for Mark Weber. The Israeli/Palestine conflict bores me to tears. This is one the main reasons I stopped listening to his podcasts. I’m sick of so-called “White nationalists” and their crocodile tears for the Palestinians. Crocodile tears for Palestine is a leftist cause (like crocodile tears for Africa)
These so-called “White Nationalists” have calculated that by crying crocodile tears for the Palestinians and screaming about Human rights violations that that will get yuppie urban leftists to support them with lots of cash. I think the leftist yuppies like Barack Obama better than they do Mark Weber so good luck to him.
I’d much rather cry real tears for the Germans and our White brethern who have been disabled by these horrible lies of the Holohoax for almost a century now.
Lew, it isn’t about whether revisionism should be brought front and center of all other issues. Look, Greg Johnson totally concedes period that the Germans committed Genocide. Johnson says that it is time we concede the “horrible atrocities” committed by Germans and “move on” which is laughable.
Listen to this if you haven’t already. Rodney Martin says it a lot better than I can.
Lew – Thanks for writing your comment and I agree that this is an important dispute. I take it you are the Lew who posted quite a few comments to Greg Johnson’s original article at The Occidental Observer.
You say you don’t want to get into the personal stuff, but I have to point out that my blog is more about why Greg Johnson wrote about Holocaust Revisionism and where he got his information about it, than about how well it fits into White Nationalism. The “personal” cannot be ignored in the big picture — as character cannot be ignored.
But based on what you’ve brought up in your comment, I have to say you are wrong about this:
many revisionists seem to regard revisionism as so important they comes across to me like they want WNists to lead with revisionism.
The truth is most “real” revisionists don’t care about White Nationalism and don’t care what it does. It is WN’s who care about it. Did you notice any “real” revisionists (those who do research and write books) posting any comments to Johnson’s article? It is White Nationalists who are also revisionists (like myself and quite a few others) who care about how WN handles holocaust revisionism. We want it to be handled honestly, accurately and respectfully.
You are also wrong when you say:
The GD leader Nikos Michaloliakos does not concede the essential truth of the narrative, but neither does he come right out and say “there was no holocaust.” Michaloliakos does not say this.
Michaloliakos says the Holocaust is a hoax. In the video you recommended he was talking to the press and trying to get around their characterizations of him. But he still said it.
However, this Greek is a poor comparison for you to use for Johnson, who not only rejects National-Socialism but even rejects political parties.
Lew, I invite you to come on my radio program (Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager) tomorrow to further discuss this important dispute. You can recommend another person of your persuasion to come on with you if you like. You have to use Skype. Let me know with a reply right here as my email account is a bit mixed up right now. I have your email address and I can then contact you further.
Golden Dawn leader Michaloliakos says that nothing extraordinary, nothing deserving special reverence, happened to Jews in World War II. If he said the same thing in English it would be the same as saying that there was no Holocaust.
Lew – In that case, I will add to my reply to your comment that “Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power.”
No one ever said it was. That’s why it’s sort of peculiar that Johnson wrote a long essay about it, simply copying what Mark Weber said in 2009. For myself, I had no problem with what Greg Johnson was writing about WN (excluding what I discovered he had written about homosexuality) until this essay appeared. It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it. I hoped you could shed some light on that.
I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.
True. It certainly doesn’t appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust. This fact looks like solid evidence to me the holocaust is a peripheral issue when it comes to practical politics. The most successful NS-type party since the real NS party did not, it appears, make holocaust denial central to their platform.
Linder immediately slapped him down.
True. It certainly doesn’t appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust.
More retardation. No one said they took power BECAUSE of the holocaust, the point is the have power and their top guy “denies” the holocaust, which ass-clowns like many say is a deal-breaker.
F*cking sh*t, this place is wall-to-wall envelope-lickers today.
Lew backed away from that position when Linder attacked him, but he still espouses a version of it.
“Irving realized he would not sell any more books about the Nazi hierarchy unless he ties this hierarchy to the Jewish-approved WWII narrative,”
I’m not sure this is an exhaustive explanation. Stolfi’s “Hitler” book, not really a “history” book per se but a commentary on what he alleges is history for the sake of the for the reader vicarious psychodrama contained therein, is a profound meditation on the aesthetic appeal the Aryan Superman, who heroically sacrifices his decency in exterminating the Jews for the good of the Volk, may have for the outwardly tame bourgeois reader. It is the same taboo thrill-seeking that Irving implicitly attempts to cater to; to experience standing above Good and Evil, to treat Morality itself as one’s obedient slave, this is a prime reason why people so much enjoy movies such as The Godfather and why James Thurber wrote his satirical short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
“It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it.”
To refrain from explicitly denouncing the Holocaust myth as untrue is an accomodation with the zeitgeist – a zeitgeist which could not be sustained but for the tender-minded quality of most individuals. For most people, to tear away from them a set-piece of their moral cosmology is, yes, “a definite provocation”. And even were the Holo-myth decisively refuted in the minds of all and sundry, the essential “moral” of the story would remain forever pristine in the hearts of most: it can never by anything but grotesque to destroy a man for his ethnicity without regard for his individual culpability in committing immoral acts. For most Aryans (I mean racially pure Northern Europeans), death, even racial death, must precede dishonor.
Also, avoiding directly challenging the veracity of the traditional Holocaust narrative, as one tries to edge racialism ever closer to the mainstream (those that cling to the mainstream are a tender-minded sort, recall), is not ipso facto evidence that proponents of this approach would see truth’s eternal flame slapped from the hands of all who wish to carry it. Truth telling not packaged for internalization by its intended hearers is, after all, only an act of self-righteous self-indulgence on the part of truth tellers. There are those, indeed many, who are simply not prepared to hear the whole truth and nothing but. However, when they are ready, it is important that skilled proponents of the unvarnished truth come to their aid.
Analysis in the service enlightenment, it seems, can only occur at multiple levels of sophistication.
I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.
——————-
The good accomplished is the self exposure of his very unhelpful beliefs.
His de-facto acceptance of the ‘Holocaust’ combined with his self proclaimed ignorance on the topic tells me that his agenda is not good.
His long windiness consists of self contradictory opinions all over the map. A lot of slippery rhetoric indeed.
Although WN and HRevisionism are in one sense separate issues they are in reality intimately connected via jewish propaganda that brainwashes Whites to associate the two. The conventional story is that to be a WN is to condone and support genocide because Nazis were WNs and they in turn were responsible for the ‘Holocaust’.
So, Johnson’s suggestion to sideline HRevisonism is a suggestion to sideline WN.
It’s hard enough to get people to take a firm stand for the truth without some person like Greg Johnson coming along and saying that it really shouldn’t be done anyway. In effect it’s a kind of demoralization propaganda.
Almost All Survivors Now Get Reparations
Reparations for 80,000 more Holocaust victims from former Soviet bloc
After six decades of negotiations with Germany, the Claims Conference (full title: The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany) has reached a $300 million deal that will cover what may be the last group of Holocaust survivors who have yet to receive any compensation for their wartime suffering: 80,000 Jews who fled east into what became the Soviet bloc countries and spent their lives there. “With the additional 80,000 people, virtually every single survivor in the world will have gotten something,” said Stuart Eizenstat, a former Secretary of State for Holocaust-Era Issues who is the Conference’s chief negotiator.
Johnson may have gotten everything that he knows about revisionism from Mark Weber, but he seems to have derived a good bit of his attitude from French “New Right” anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye.
Guillaume Faye and Greg Johnson are both opposed to narrowing down what the word Holocaust (or Shoah as they say in Europe) is supposed to mean so that it can be asked rationally whether this essence of the Holocaust Myth is true or false:
Faye:
What discredits revisionism is the way it has attempted to make a technical dispute over the execution gas chambers an indefensible dispute over the Shoah itself. [Faye, The New Jewish Question, p. 195]
Johnson:
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…. Even if the genocidal intent, the gas chambers, etc. go the way of human soap and lampshades, that fact [that countless innocent Jews lost their lives] is never going to disappear….
Faye and Johnson agree that all that fancy logical thinking isn’t worth a hoot.
Faye:
[…] what are [revisionists] disputing? Only that the means employed were gas chambers, or the process of attempted extermination itself? The deportations of Jews to concentration camps? What is it that didn’t exist? On what semantic level was the lie they’re claiming, and where, exactly, is the dividing line between reality and deception? Can one believe there were no anti-Jewish persecutions? (Faye, The New Jewish Question, p. 264)
Actually, revisionists form their ideas in a fog, in which nobody understands anything any more. They’ve discredited themselves by giving the impression the Third Reich did not really persecute Jews, which is like saying Julius Cæsar didn’t invade Gaul. (p. 192)
Johnson:
Holocaust death totals are never going to be revised to zero. In a war in which countless innocent people of all nations died, countless innocent Jews surely died as well, and ultimately that’s all the Holocaust needs to survive. The gas chambers, the genocidal intent, and the rest of it could be dropped, but poor little Anne Frank and many others like her would still be dead.
So I just don’t waste my precious time on Holocaust revisionism, because no accretion of facts, details, etc. is going to alter the facts that the Germans singled Jews out for especially harsh treatment, and a great number of people died for no other reason than the fact they were Jews. That should be Holocaust enough for anyone.
You may recognize the part of Johnson’s argument that some (Linder &co.) wish to blame on Jared Taylor in Faye’s essay “Ethnomasochism”:
(It is) the masochistic tendency to regard with a sense of guilt and a sense of worthlessness one’s own ethnic group, one’s own people.
Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-à-vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the “oppressors”. It is therefore necessary to repent and to “pay the debt.” This effort at repentance, a veritable historical sham, has been undertaken by the Churches, as well as by the European States.
Greggy published Michael O’Meara’s review of Faye’s anti-revisionist book in August of last year. From O’Meara’s review, we see the clear origin of Greggy’s genius idea of calling Hitler “Old Right” and himself “New Right,” and pretending that the past can be simply disowned:
”Faye thus joins those nationalists who seek “freedom from history” in order to pursue anti-immigrant politics without being associated with the demobilizing tags of anti-Semitism, Nazism, and extremism, dismissing, in effect, the contention that it is the anathematization of these earlier expressions of European being that empowers and legitimatizes the system’s anti-European policies.
It is beyond doubt that Johnson derived inspiration from this erstwhile performer in pornographic films.
Like Mark Weber, Johnson gets “inspiration” from a wide number of sources. Faye is a terrible Philo-Semite. Something I’ve been thinking about but didn’t say today is that Johnson’s attitude toward “our ancestors” is to throw them under the bus, just like he’s willing to do with our kinsmen, the Germans. I mean, he says “We are not responsible for whatever crimes our ancestors committed; we can just move on and leave that behind.” He would leave ‘our ancestors’ behind as guilty criminals while he goes forth into a guilt-free future! I think we have to defend our ancestors, especially if we think they weren’t guilty but are being libeled. Our ancestors, ourselves.
The Holocaust (or “Shoah”) is per definition the GENOCIDE of Jews by the Nazis during WWII. If there was neither intent nor practice of such a genocide, THEN THERE WAS NO HOLOCAUST. Period. The deportation and internment of Jews was no genocide, even if some (or many) Jews thus interned died of hunger or typhus at the end of the war due to Allied bombing. Anne Frank died of typhus in a concentration camp. She, like many of her co-ethnics who died for similar reasons, was no victim of a Holocaust. Neither are Jews who survived WWII “Holocaust survivors”. At most they could claim reparations for their internment, but not for a mythical “Holocaust”. Internment and accidental death in concentration camps should not be “Holocaust enough” as Greg Johnson would have it. That is to concede to a malicious propaganda lie ( which is now even used to promote a REAL genocide of white people). Stick to the right definition and lies and confusion disappear.
The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
There is an important dispute. I wish there were a way to deal with the arguments without making it personal. I don’t care about the personal stuff myself and have no intention of wading into that part of this disagreement.
In looking to the arguments, my sentiment is that Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power. There is a real-world example that seems to back up this position. In Greece, the NS-like Golden Party didn’t make revisionism part of their message to my knowledge, and Golden Dawn won power.
Maybe I have a false impression, but many revisionists seem to regard revisionism as so important they comes across to me like they want WNists to lead with revisionism. They come across like they want WNists to lead with revisionism in their appeals to persuade people rather than lead with messages people are likely to perceive as more relevant to their lives and concerns. If this isn’t true, revisionists might benefit from fine-tuning their message.
I can see where many people might consider revisionism necessary in the sense that the enemy will always make it necessary whether anyone likes it or not.
The question is what to do about it?
The GD leader Nikos Michaloliakos does not concede the essential truth of the narrative, but neither does he come right out and say “there was no holocaust.” Michaloliakos does not say this. He speaks in terms of 1) exaggerations, and 2) the fact that Jews were not the only group who suffered war crimes (an seeming implicit acknowledgment there were crimes against them), and 3) the Allies also committed war crimes, and 4) there were no gas chambers. While all of that adds up to a major challenge to the official narrative, again, I didn’t see where he used words like “the holocaust did not happen.” So if that’s the standard revisionists are demanding, absolute blanket denial in unequivocal terms, it does not appear even the NS-like, fascist GD meets that standard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXy7f17GXtQ
I got a news flash for Mark Weber. The Israeli/Palestine conflict bores me to tears. This is one the main reasons I stopped listening to his podcasts. I’m sick of so-called “White nationalists” and their crocodile tears for the Palestinians. Crocodile tears for Palestine is a leftist cause (like crocodile tears for Africa)
These so-called “White Nationalists” have calculated that by crying crocodile tears for the Palestinians and screaming about Human rights violations that that will get yuppie urban leftists to support them with lots of cash. I think the leftist yuppies like Barack Obama better than they do Mark Weber so good luck to him.
I’d much rather cry real tears for the Germans and our White brethern who have been disabled by these horrible lies of the Holohoax for almost a century now.
Lew, it isn’t about whether revisionism should be brought front and center of all other issues. Look, Greg Johnson totally concedes period that the Germans committed Genocide. Johnson says that it is time we concede the “horrible atrocities” committed by Germans and “move on” which is laughable.
Listen to this if you haven’t already. Rodney Martin says it a lot better than I can.
http://www.wvfoundations.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/714.mp3
Lew – Thanks for writing your comment and I agree that this is an important dispute. I take it you are the Lew who posted quite a few comments to Greg Johnson’s original article at The Occidental Observer.
You say you don’t want to get into the personal stuff, but I have to point out that my blog is more about why Greg Johnson wrote about Holocaust Revisionism and where he got his information about it, than about how well it fits into White Nationalism. The “personal” cannot be ignored in the big picture — as character cannot be ignored.
But based on what you’ve brought up in your comment, I have to say you are wrong about this:
The truth is most “real” revisionists don’t care about White Nationalism and don’t care what it does. It is WN’s who care about it. Did you notice any “real” revisionists (those who do research and write books) posting any comments to Johnson’s article? It is White Nationalists who are also revisionists (like myself and quite a few others) who care about how WN handles holocaust revisionism. We want it to be handled honestly, accurately and respectfully.
You are also wrong when you say:
Michaloliakos says the Holocaust is a hoax. In the video you recommended he was talking to the press and trying to get around their characterizations of him. But he still said it.
However, this Greek is a poor comparison for you to use for Johnson, who not only rejects National-Socialism but even rejects political parties.
Lew, I invite you to come on my radio program (Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager) tomorrow to further discuss this important dispute. You can recommend another person of your persuasion to come on with you if you like. You have to use Skype. Let me know with a reply right here as my email account is a bit mixed up right now. I have your email address and I can then contact you further.
Golden Dawn leader Michaloliakos says that nothing extraordinary, nothing deserving special reverence, happened to Jews in World War II. If he said the same thing in English it would be the same as saying that there was no Holocaust.
Carolyn: I have nothing to add beyond the point I made up top.
This is really giving too much credit for consistency.
Lew – In that case, I will add to my reply to your comment that “Greg Johnson is right that revisionism isn’t necessary to WNism in the sense that it needs to be brought to the front-and-center of our discourse for WNist to obtain power.”
No one ever said it was. That’s why it’s sort of peculiar that Johnson wrote a long essay about it, simply copying what Mark Weber said in 2009. For myself, I had no problem with what Greg Johnson was writing about WN (excluding what I discovered he had written about homosexuality) until this essay appeared. It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it. I hoped you could shed some light on that.
I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.
Fresh from his shenanigans on TOO four days ago, Lew registered on http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074&page=9 where he stated a more emphatic form of the same strawman argument that he now makes here.
Linder immediately slapped him down.
Lew backed away from that position when Linder attacked him, but he still espouses a version of it.
“Irving realized he would not sell any more books about the Nazi hierarchy unless he ties this hierarchy to the Jewish-approved WWII narrative,”
I’m not sure this is an exhaustive explanation. Stolfi’s “Hitler” book, not really a “history” book per se but a commentary on what he alleges is history for the sake of the for the reader vicarious psychodrama contained therein, is a profound meditation on the aesthetic appeal the Aryan Superman, who heroically sacrifices his decency in exterminating the Jews for the good of the Volk, may have for the outwardly tame bourgeois reader. It is the same taboo thrill-seeking that Irving implicitly attempts to cater to; to experience standing above Good and Evil, to treat Morality itself as one’s obedient slave, this is a prime reason why people so much enjoy movies such as The Godfather and why James Thurber wrote his satirical short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
“It is a definite provocation, and I have yet to discover an answer from him as to the purpose of it.”
To refrain from explicitly denouncing the Holocaust myth as untrue is an accomodation with the zeitgeist – a zeitgeist which could not be sustained but for the tender-minded quality of most individuals. For most people, to tear away from them a set-piece of their moral cosmology is, yes, “a definite provocation”. And even were the Holo-myth decisively refuted in the minds of all and sundry, the essential “moral” of the story would remain forever pristine in the hearts of most: it can never by anything but grotesque to destroy a man for his ethnicity without regard for his individual culpability in committing immoral acts. For most Aryans (I mean racially pure Northern Europeans), death, even racial death, must precede dishonor.
Also, avoiding directly challenging the veracity of the traditional Holocaust narrative, as one tries to edge racialism ever closer to the mainstream (those that cling to the mainstream are a tender-minded sort, recall), is not ipso facto evidence that proponents of this approach would see truth’s eternal flame slapped from the hands of all who wish to carry it. Truth telling not packaged for internalization by its intended hearers is, after all, only an act of self-righteous self-indulgence on the part of truth tellers. There are those, indeed many, who are simply not prepared to hear the whole truth and nothing but. However, when they are ready, it is important that skilled proponents of the unvarnished truth come to their aid.
Analysis in the service enlightenment, it seems, can only occur at multiple levels of sophistication.
Carolyn
August 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm
I would like someone to explain what good was accomplished by that article. It seems pointless to me, except for strangely expressing belief in the ‘Holocaust.’ Reinforcing Weber’s view, from Irving, that “millions of innocent Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.” So was this simply a way to distance Greg Johnson and his Counter-Currents publishing from accusations of “holocaust denial” from the ADL as he moves into his 501c3 future? A reasonable question that should receive an answer from Mr. Johnson.
——————-
The good accomplished is the self exposure of his very unhelpful beliefs.
His de-facto acceptance of the ‘Holocaust’ combined with his self proclaimed ignorance on the topic tells me that his agenda is not good.
His long windiness consists of self contradictory opinions all over the map. A lot of slippery rhetoric indeed.
Although WN and HRevisionism are in one sense separate issues they are in reality intimately connected via jewish propaganda that brainwashes Whites to associate the two. The conventional story is that to be a WN is to condone and support genocide because Nazis were WNs and they in turn were responsible for the ‘Holocaust’.
So, Johnson’s suggestion to sideline HRevisonism is a suggestion to sideline WN.
It’s hard enough to get people to take a firm stand for the truth without some person like Greg Johnson coming along and saying that it really shouldn’t be done anyway. In effect it’s a kind of demoralization propaganda.
Holohoax Survivors who Tell the Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8UmMuRSSw&bpctr=1344119560
——————-
Almost All Survivors Now Get Reparations
Reparations for 80,000 more Holocaust victims from former Soviet bloc
After six decades of negotiations with Germany, the Claims Conference (full title: The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany) has reached a $300 million deal that will cover what may be the last group of Holocaust survivors who have yet to receive any compensation for their wartime suffering: 80,000 Jews who fled east into what became the Soviet bloc countries and spent their lives there. “With the additional 80,000 people, virtually every single survivor in the world will have gotten something,” said Stuart Eizenstat, a former Secretary of State for Holocaust-Era Issues who is the Conference’s chief negotiator.
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/105973/almost-all-survivors-now-get-reparations
Johnson may have gotten everything that he knows about revisionism from Mark Weber, but he seems to have derived a good bit of his attitude from French “New Right” anti-revisionist Guillaume Faye.
Guillaume Faye and Greg Johnson are both opposed to narrowing down what the word Holocaust (or Shoah as they say in Europe) is supposed to mean so that it can be asked rationally whether this essence of the Holocaust Myth is true or false:
Faye:
Johnson:
Faye and Johnson agree that all that fancy logical thinking isn’t worth a hoot.
Faye:
Johnson:
You may recognize the part of Johnson’s argument that some (Linder &co.) wish to blame on Jared Taylor in Faye’s essay “Ethnomasochism”:
Greggy published Michael O’Meara’s review of Faye’s anti-revisionist book in August of last year. From O’Meara’s review, we see the clear origin of Greggy’s genius idea of calling Hitler “Old Right” and himself “New Right,” and pretending that the past can be simply disowned:
It is beyond doubt that Johnson derived inspiration from this erstwhile performer in pornographic films.
Like Mark Weber, Johnson gets “inspiration” from a wide number of sources. Faye is a terrible Philo-Semite. Something I’ve been thinking about but didn’t say today is that Johnson’s attitude toward “our ancestors” is to throw them under the bus, just like he’s willing to do with our kinsmen, the Germans. I mean, he says “We are not responsible for whatever crimes our ancestors committed; we can just move on and leave that behind.” He would leave ‘our ancestors’ behind as guilty criminals while he goes forth into a guilt-free future! I think we have to defend our ancestors, especially if we think they weren’t guilty but are being libeled. Our ancestors, ourselves.
The Holocaust (or “Shoah”) is per definition the GENOCIDE of Jews by the Nazis during WWII. If there was neither intent nor practice of such a genocide, THEN THERE WAS NO HOLOCAUST. Period. The deportation and internment of Jews was no genocide, even if some (or many) Jews thus interned died of hunger or typhus at the end of the war due to Allied bombing. Anne Frank died of typhus in a concentration camp. She, like many of her co-ethnics who died for similar reasons, was no victim of a Holocaust. Neither are Jews who survived WWII “Holocaust survivors”. At most they could claim reparations for their internment, but not for a mythical “Holocaust”. Internment and accidental death in concentration camps should not be “Holocaust enough” as Greg Johnson would have it. That is to concede to a malicious propaganda lie ( which is now even used to promote a REAL genocide of white people). Stick to the right definition and lies and confusion disappear.