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.

——————-

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

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.

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’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.

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.

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.