I am amused that Dalton felt it necessary to treat every point that Johnson made with seriousness.
Only people heavily immersed in self-delusion could accept the proposition that adopting the victim-posture ourselves could be in the long term a winning strategy.
Johnson’s essay was so bad that he was basically booed off the stage. I wonder why Dalton even felt that it was worthy of a response. Isn’t Dalton supposed to be “somebody”? Greg Johnson is almost beneath my dignity at this point, and I never wrote any famous book.
I felt the same as I began reading it, but you know that fellow PhD’s have to treat each other with respect and always find something positive to say at the beginning. Beyond taking Johnson too seriously, Dalton did go farther in this “rebuttal” about Jewish guilt than I’ve ever heard any revisionist go. Or, at least, anyone at CODOH-sponsored Inconvenient History Journal. I think it’s fabulous in that regard. He is actually saying what I’ve been saying: The Germans were defending themselves against Jewish crimes! The Jews cannot be tolerated in White European societies.
Dalton is a University professor or teaches in some capacity, who uses this pseudonym. He is pretty courageous, therefore. He’s obviously not a libertarian moderate who thinks we can be friendly with Jews, as so many there do. I think what he wrote here will become controversial in both Revisionist and White Nationalist circles. I don’t think you should be putting Dalton down for minor flaws.
It’s possible Dalton decided to respond to Johnson’s essay in order to give out these views about the Jews. He’s never said anything close to this before, as far as I know. And I’ve read a lot of his stuff.
Dalton writes, regarding the false argument about whether the Holohoax is the “source of Jewish power” or simply an “expression” of that power:
Rather, it is a means—their most important means for effecting control. Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool. They have invested much in this story, and it would be very costly and time-consuming for them to develop another, equally-effective tool.
This is what I said Monday night in relation to the ADL – that “Holocaust Denial” is their No. 1 enemy. It’s clear that it is. But Greg Johnson is a know-nothing on Holocaust who believes he can pass himself off as an expert in everything. Like you, Hadding, my opinion of him has plummeted so low that it may even go to zero. I really think he is finished because he has been “found out”, but it will take awhile for him and his followers to grasp that. Of course, many others keep going even after that so what the heck … he probably will too. But his star will never shine so bright again. And that’s as it should be.
This VNN thread is where you will see Greg Johnson coming apart at the seams even more so that he did in the TOO comments section. http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074 People should go through this and read Greg’s posts, and also Hadding’s. They really tell the story.
A very solid response by Dalton. Good to see a well known revisionist respond to Johnson’s essay.
As Carolyn and Hadding have commented, Dalton’s introductory remarks — “Greg Johnson’s concise and articulate essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust”, is to be commended for grappling intelligently with two very controversial topics: White Nationalism and the Holocaust.”— seem a little too kind given the skewering that follows. I suspect there’s some undercover sarcasm involved here with Dalton, as Johnson’s essay was surely not ‘concise’ nor what I would call ‘intelligent’.
But Johnson is intelligent (which doesn’t stop you from doing stupid things BTW), so what’s behind his essay? One big motive looks like his aim to get Counter Currents classified as an organization that allows donors to claim tax deductions. To get such classification would mean distancing ones organization from accusations of being a den of ‘Holocaust’ deniers. Proof of that would be helped by writing the article he did and then stirring the pot. No doubt there are other motives.
But enough of Johnson’s games. Let’s turn to Dalton’s concise and intelligent killer comments.
————
By Thomas Dalton
July 31, 2012
Because the power structure has no response to revisionism except censorship, the general public, and whites in particular, can be given a “proof,” of sorts, of Jewish duplicity. The Holocaust is a canonical case of Jewish deception and manipulation, and revisionism lays bare that fact. Many of the central revisionist arguments are clear and obvious; they require little in the way of specialized knowledge. Any non-Jew with a shred of rationality can be shown that they have been largely (though not completely) duped; this should make any thinking person more than a little angry.
———
This is pure and concise poetry!
People will be more than a little angry when they realize they’ve been taken for a very long ride, conned and scammed all the way.
————–
The fact that Jewish fatality numbers never will go to zero, as Johnson emphasizes, does not really matter. The likely death toll is perhaps 10% of the claimed figures. A 90% reduction in deaths is not just some minor fiddling around the edges; it is a wholesale collapse of “the most well-documented event in history.” Those who have staked their careers and incomes on this event will be in for a rude awakening.
————–
Another gem of a paragraph.
Johnson thinks numbers don’t matter much, jewish suffering is jewish suffering, so let them have their ‘holocaust’ and 100,000 museums and movies and books and essays and, ad nauseam. Step aside, over and under. Total BS.
I think what he really means by ‘step over’ is ‘start crawling’.
Katana, Hadding and all: I am not able to find this article posted on the Internet except by Michael Santomauro at a Yahoo Discussion Group on which he is a regular. Santomauro is the publisher of Dalton’s book Debating the Holocaust. I have made some inquiries and will let you know what I find out. It’s all just a little bit strange.
I just received a reply from Michael Santomauro telling me that Thomas Dalton sent him (Michael) the essay “Nationalism and the Holocaust – A Reply to Johnson,” which was rejected by Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer.
So friends, know that a reply to Greg Johnson by a respected revisionist was turned down at the site where Johnson’s article was published. Is that bias or not? So apparently Dalton sent it to Michael to do something with. I am the only person who has published it … so far. Anyone who can should spread it around.
I’m very gratified that Thomas Dalton is the author. So we can relax about that.
“Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool.”
It seems to me that what they really fear is getting caught out in a lie. How can anyone quantify guilt ? Who feels guilty for the Holocaust ? I don’t know anyone of the post war generation feeling guilty. Surely getting discredited and the righteous indignation that would arise if enough people “get it” is what they are afraid of ? Their trickery gets exposed and their enemies (everyone) start to wise up about their shenanigans.
The Holocaust is their Achilles Heel and therefore should be attacked at every opportunity. The Holocaust Lie exposes the Jew for what he is, dishonest. The dishonest fear discovery more than anything. Their fear of exposure is so great they have gone to the extreme length of corrupting our legal systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZlEXiyt8Q&feature=related
I think Organized Jewry is much more bothered by revisionism that has no hint of hostility toward Jews about it. Look at Ernst Zundel: he’s all about truth and reconciliation, and they probably hate him more than anybody.
I think Deborah Lipstadt emphasizes the implicit accusation of dishonesty in revisionism because it suits her purpose to find a way to represent revisionism as more of an anti-Jew movement than a pro-truth movement.
I like the article and I’m glad someone with credentials went to the trouble of writing a response to Greg’s article. It could very well be that TOO thought Greg had taken enough beating already. I will post this on my tiny, little site.
This is excellent: Jews don’t just work against whites; they work against everyone.
This is very good: The lackeys have done, and continue to do, much of the legwork in protecting the orthodox Holocaust story, and in defending Jews generally. And because they are predominantly white, they pose a special challenge to White Nationalism. Downplaying revisionism lets these folks off the hook. This also explains why non-Whites see Whites as a problem.
But this I’m wonder about (is it true Carolyn?):all the while knowing that many would die in the wartime conditions. If the NS didn’t care if Jews died why all the trouble trying to eliminate typhus or executing Koch or bothering with hospitals in the camps?
I think Organized Jewry is much more bothered by revisionism that has no hint of hostility toward Jews about it. Look at Ernst Zundel: he’s all about truth and reconciliation, and they probably hate him more than anybody.
Ernst Zundel applauds Hitler and National Socialism. He also was the most effective spokesman for the holohoax idea and was building up a large following. That’s why they hate him more than anybody … not because he wasn’t hostile toward Jews. Many revisionists are not hostile toward Jews per se.
Yes, it’s not perfect. The question might be asked: Was it up to the Germans to protect every Jew from harm during the war, when other groups and even Germans could not be protected? It’s a ridiculous manner of speaking, but it’s become commonplace to say things like that. Good for you for noticing it.
Ernst Zundel is totally mild-mannered, not hostile to Jews. He sat and interviewed the Jew, Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, who also praises Hitler. The point is that Zundel is outwardly nonthreatening and states his mission as redeeming the honor of his people. It’s a defensive demand for truth and justice and, Zundel will say, reconciliation, not essentially an attack of any kind.
The fundamental utility of revisionism to nationalists has always been to dispel anti-nationalist propaganda-lies. In other words it’s defensive, but it’s also an education toward a clearer view of reality.
Deborah Lipstadt says that revisionism is fundamentally about attacking Jews. I would suggest not helping Lipstadt on that.
The point is that Zundel is outwardly nonthreatening and states his mission as redeeming the honor of his people. It’s a defensive demand for truth and justice and, Zundel will say, reconciliation, not essentially an attack of any kind.
The Jews are not fooled by that. As I said, Zundel was more effective than anyone else. That’s what counts.
Deborah Lipstadt says that revisionism is fundamentally about attacking Jews. I would suggest not helping Lipstadt on that.
Truly, I don’t think we should be concerned with Deborah Lipstadt.
This entire episode (I only read Greg’s article after it was linked on Occidental Dissent a few days ago) has been fascinating to witness. The thread on VNN with contributions from Hadding, Carolyn, and Alex, contrasted with the responses from Greg, are illuminating.
As well as that I found Alex’s insights on the source and nature of so-called ‘White guilt’ powerful. Although I ‘knew’ it already, I ‘know’ it now in an entirely new way. It’s freeing.
And infuriating.
ps: I feel sorry for Greg Johnson at this stage.
I can’t believe he thinks what he does on this, despite all that has been said, but apparently he really does.
So be it.
Mary – I did not have any posts on the VNN thread. I’m not registered there. Alex Linder did post my article “Everything Greg Johnson knows about Holocaust Revisionism he learned from Mark Weber” and used it to make points. As did Johnson, who had to respond to it. Johnson brought me up several times in a cowardly, accusing way (along with Hadding), without ever quoting from me, but I have only ever quoted directly from his own writings in anything I’ve written or spoken about him. I find his insinuations that Hadding and I are being paid “by our enemies” to “cyber-stalk” him a very childish way to defend himself.
Hadding came up with a good phrase. He told me he now saw Greg Johnson as gifted only with a “superficial eclecticism.”
P.S. I see now that Alex copied some comments by me from here, so that it kind of looks like I’m posting there.
Now I see that Greg Johnson, in his blog about the CC Fundraiser, has changed the title of his essay to “Understanding the Holocaust” from “Dealing with the Holocaust.” He’s already re-arranging his history?
The Jews are not fooled by that. As I said, Zundel was more effective than anyone else. That’s what counts.
You persist in missing the point. Zundel was effective largely because he was nonthreatening. Do you really think he was trying to fool anybody? I think he might find that a little insulting.
I refer to Deborah Lipstadt only as a witness to the fact that a nonthreatening revisionist is exactly what organized Jewry can least tolerate, while the opposite interpretation of revisionism as merely an expression of malice toward Jews is what they want and need.
Nonthreatening of course is not to say unrigorous. Somebody that presents the revisionist case matter-of-factly is going to be a lot more convincing to almost everybody than somebody that seems to have a visceral hatred of Jews. An audience assumes that somebody driven by hatred surely has twisted the facts.
Yes Carolyn, your contributions were re-posted, but fit in so well on there too that I just wanted to make mention of them.
As for Johnson, well,I agree with the assessment that he made a very bad judgement call by writing this essay and now he is paying for it. I guess it’s no wonder he will want to try and frame things in as positive a way as possible (for himself of course; ha) given what the fallout has already cost him.
Ps: I am a bit ashamed to admit this, but I had never visited Ernst Zundel’s website before. Although I knew his name, I really didn’t know much about him.
Tonight I watched the documentary ‘Off Your Knees Germany’…and I am still in shock, what an incredibly inspiring man! He truly is a modern day martyr. I mean it was even like watching a love story too, with all that his wife did. I really loved it although it of course has my blood boiling. “We are condemned to WIN”–brilliant.
>1. Revisionists themselves concede that many innocent Jews died in WW II, and that is “Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes…
>2. … In the end, I think that the facts are on the Jewish side, in the sense that even if all the after-the-fact lies deducted from the story, there’s still “Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes.
>3. … I would like whites to become serenely indifferent to guilt trips and moral blackmail, no matter what our people have done in the past. A race with the vitality and will to power to project future cannot be tied to past negatives.
——-
Please quantify what you think is ‘”Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes’.
Is 500,000 dead as a result of disease, starvation and other general consequences of a breakdown in basic infrastructure, along with no genocidal plan and of course no gas chambers? Are these the facts that you think are on the jewish side? I really don’t think so.
Give us some concrete minimum criteria (instead of constant evasions) of what you think jews would accept as a ‘Holocaust’.
What is the minimum combination that you (or jews) think, constitutes a ‘Holocaust’?
Your opinions on this have vague generalizations about them, because as you have said elsewhere you really don’t have much of an interest in the topic and have not studied it.
Your being ‘serenely indifferent … no matter what our people have done in the past’ idea sounds a little like you’re suggesting a psychopathic attitude. Guilt is good if it stems from real crimes. But creating endless guilt based on gigantic lies broadcast everyday of our lives by jewish media propaganda is criminal abuse. And this is what you are condoning (by ‘stepping over’), the continuing abuse by jewish media of Whites through jewish ‘Holocaust’ lies. Whites have a guilty conscience because they are being told non-stop, cradle to grave, by jewish media that Whites are evil.
Another thing is your disrespect to Revisionists by your advice. They have labored away, suffering persecution, through jail sentences, loss of jobs and so on because they believed in the need for the truth to come out: that the ‘holocaust’ is in actual fact a hoax. So you come along, in confessed ignorance, and dismiss them with “Holocaust enough” talk.
Step over your own ignorance and study the ‘Holocaust’ properly and come back in six months with Version 2 of your essay.
About recent topics (Holocaust, Voice of Reason, Homosexuality) :
Greg Johnson would like to build up a movement called the American New Right, but so far, he is mainly the editor of a blog that publishes old and new articles, as well as books. That is useful work. I disagree with his article “Dealing with the Holocaust”, but I still like other articles that he writes or publishes. He and others bring up original ideas that I haven’t thought of, or information that I didn’t know about. I try to remember what I agree with, and I don’t have to pay attention to the rest. It’s not as if it was a political party that I was a member of. It doesn’t matter all that much what Greg Johnson says about the holocaust. He doesn’t have a large following of people who will align themselves with his personal positions. And in fact, he did good work about the holocaust thing by publishing Irmin Vinson, as well as his own articles about Hitler. When he writes good stuff, that’s great. When he writes nonsense, it can be ignored. If he starts writing too much nonsense, I will simply stop reading his blog.
I think the case of Voice of Reason Radio is different. It’s interesting to have Robert Stark do interviews of people that we don’t get to listen to in the mainstream media. Keith Preston is interesting too. But if you are part of a project to defend White people and fight race-replacement, it’s better not to associate with non-Whites, and with people who don’t care at all about the White cause. You can give them interviews, but not as part of your pro-White project. It wouldn’t matter if Robert Stark did interviews of Jewish people on some other internet radio station.
About homosexuality. Homosexuality isn’t good for society, but I think it doesn’t matter if there are White Nationalists who are gay-friendly while other White Nationalists insist on the necessity to discourage homosexuality. In the current situation, the Jewish media speak in the name of White people, of women, of young people, of the Blacks, of the workers, of homosexuals, and so on. But in fact, they are betraying every group of people they claim to defend. Their real agenda is race replacement. So, I think it can be useful to have a few White Nationalists who say they are into homosexuality but still resist the Jews.
#296
Alex Linder wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Organon
Here is the brief email reply Kevin MacDonald wrote to me:
From: Kevin MacDonald
Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Another Submission
I am sorry, but I do not have sympathy for this line of argument. IMO, revisionism is a waste of time. Kevin M
————-
Thanks for confirming that, Organon. He might as reasonably say his own works are a waste of time, since a good part of them involves digging up history the kikes have deliberately hidden or lied about.
Note again how the Ph.D. is taken in by words. “Revisionism” is a waste of time. That’s equivalent to saying the facts are a waste of time. Even when they’re used to refute big lies that are the basis of group libel? Even when those libels are used to abuse white children daily? It is his line of argument that leads nowhere, and as with Greg, his real motive is not intellectual, it is personal.
===========================
Interesting information Alex. So Kevin MacDonald thinks “revisionism is a waste of time.”
Well that dashes my thoughts that he was just lying low to avoid ‘questioning’ from jewish inquisitors. Maybe he’s lying much lower than that. He has a career, a reputation, a high income and so on. All enough worth not crossing some lines, and all for what? He has done a lot with his books and web site.
Can someone point out where he has discussed such a viewpoint? In any case I think he’s quite wrong. Probably for the same reason that Greg Johnson is wrong.
What Prof Kevin MacDonald should do is write an essay telling us why Revisionism is a waste of time. An essay not in Greg Johnson’s style of long winded and twisted evasion, but in ordinary straightforward language that us plebs can understand.
Armor – What does it mean to be “into homosexuality?”
First you make a clear statement: “Homosexuality isn’t good for society.” Then you continue that they’re okay if they’re WN – they can be useful. That leaves me confused.
Earlier in your comment, you said:
I disagree with his article “Dealing with the Holocaust”, but I still like other articles that he writes or publishes. He and others bring up original ideas that I haven’t thought of, or information that I didn’t know about.
After discovering the “real” Greg Johnson, first in the comments to “Dealing with the Holocaust” (which he’s now calling “Understanding the Holocaust” [given it’s his own article, I can’t quite believe he just remembered it wrongly, although that is possible]) and now in his posts in the long thread at VNN under consideration here, I can no longer like anything he writes or has written. Why? Because he is a slippery “superficial eclectic” who has no original ideas, but clearly steals from any source he finds convenient. He seldom give credit, thus he poses as an original thinker. More on this later.
Hadding – I’m not missing your point. Zundel was ‘nonthreatening’ to whom? White people, right? Not the Jews. The Jews were very threatened by him, that is why they were pitiless in punishing him. They are still afraid of him, which is why the ADL wants to shut down the Zundelsite.
You miss my point when you say “Do you really think he was trying to fool anybody?” Of course HE was not trying to fool anybody. What I said was: the fact that Whites and even non-Whites found him likable and sincere did not fool the Jews as to his harmlessness. How effective you are in waking up the folk is all Jews care about. That’s all we should care about, too.
Not every revisionist can be like Zundel, so they shouldn’t try. Every revisionist should function according to their own lights and personality. For some reason, you don’t like or you want to criticize Thomas Dalton. I now like Thomas Dalton more than ever and I hope he can convince other of his colleagues to go more in his (new?) direction. Well … I hope he doesn’t back away from it.
I made it clear in an earlier comment here (which Alex posted in the VNN thread) that Michael Santomauro said that Thomas Dalton told him in a phone call that KMac himself refused to publish his “Reply to Johnson.” This was good enough for me (though not for Henry), since KMac has been known for some time to keep anything about the “Holocaust” away from him. This goes along with his rejection of anything to do with “Nazis” or even WWII revisionism.
What is the real source of this strong aversion? Don’t know, but it’s nothing new.
For KMac, it’s okay to publish anti-revisionist articles (like Greg’s), but not rebuttals to it, even when they are in the full “scholarly” mode by another Ph.D. MacDonald is going to be a speaker at Johnson’s upcoming ‘retreat’, unless he has cancelled. Mark Weber also. These three are all in accord now.
Anyone who questions the holocaust is a threat to the Jew, mild mannered or not. The Big Jew knows the gig is up concerning the holocau$t. They are in damage control mode now and so the sleepers are waking up and making statements like “German Jews didn’t want world Jewry to go to war”… of course not, they wanted to continue fleecing the Real Germans. They (the sleepers) will also be pushing the idea that the Jews have been traumatized by the holocaust story too, just like everyone else so they are really not to blame (poor souls)…So lets see them pay back the billions that went to them (and only them) because of the Big Lie. Lets see them renounce their minority status. I will believe that Jews want to be equal members of humanity when they are willing to publically declare themselves Jews (say by adding *sky* to their surnames), this would make things transparent now wouldn’t it? Of course nothing can ever bring back the hundreds of millions who have died because of Jewish tribalism. Acknowledging their complicity is a start to the healing process for them as well as for us.
Hadding – I’m not missing your point. Zundel was ‘nonthreatening’ to whom? White people, right? Not the Jews.
Have you never listened to Zundel? He is nonthreatening to Jews as such. Zundel talks about reconciliation.
One thing that organized Jewry, with its entrenched adversarial posture toward White people, cannot stand, is reconciliation. With reconciliation Jewish solidarity against the rest of the world, based on paranoia, collapses.
The last thing a paranoiac wants to hear is that his fear is not valid, because he needs that fear to hold himself together. If you are nice and try to convince him that there is nothing to fear he will regard you as trying to trick him into letting down his guard, and he will see you as the most dangerous enemy of all.
The more nonthreatening the revisionist, the more obvious the paranoid reaction of the Jewish leadership becomes.
Might I please ask for your help in dealing with the charge from some jews I am arguing with elsewhere regarding Zundel’s being jewish? They are getting this garbage from wikipedia, and I believe is based also on a charge from a jewish jounalist in Toronto, Mark Bonokoski.
Second: I went ahead and used the Leuchter report without having done enough research into his background, and am now in a bit of a corner, haha, as his findings are being laughed at by quite a few on there now.
Are there some good sources to use when arguing this material?
Thanks in advance.
(Carolyn, if you prefer to have this discussed somewhere else I am fine with you deleting this )
Hear, hear, Helvena. They very much want to escape blame, don’t they? That is probably what we should be keeping watch on … how they’re going about it.
The last thing a paranoiac wants to hear is that his fear is not valid, because he needs that fear to hold himself together. If you are nice and try to convince him that there is nothing to fear he will regard you as trying to trick him into letting down his guard, and he will see you as the most dangerous enemy of all.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying – Zundel was seen by Jews as most dangerous. But I think it’s just as much that he was so effective in opening people’s eyes. Maybe we’re just both trying to hard to make a point. I quit.
No, it’s fine Mary. It will educate all. But Hadding knows Zundel much better than I (even met him) and probably knows more about the Leuchter report also. But Zundel is not Jewish — I never even heard that before. I’ll have to look up his wiki page.
But don’t let those Jews intimidate you. The Leuchter report was NOT “debunked” or proven worthless, or anything like that. It had a small error or something left out, but that didn’t invalidate it’s conclusions. Germar Rudolf repeated the tests, correcting what was left out with Leuchter, and got the same results. Leuchter stands as being the first to demonstrate the blue stains on the wall phenomena. A great man of truth.
I read his book “Letters from Cell #7” and watched a bunch of video with him. I never noticed that. But the CODOH philosophy is willing to reconcile with Jews, even though Jews are totally hateful to CODOH. Bradley Smith told me he would reconcile with Mark Weber if MW showed any interest. The reconciliation posture doesn’t work and that’s why I don’t like it.
I mean people who publicly talk a lot about their homosexuality. It isn’t always clear if it’s about sex or politics. Theoretically, if it is only about their sexual activity, they don’t really need to tell us about it.
“First you make a clear statement: “Homosexuality isn’t good for society.”
Because it is an obvious obstacle to founding stable families. But if it remains uncommon, it doesn’t matter. The real problem is homosexual activism.
“Then you continue that they’re okay if they’re WN – they can be useful.”
If the main message of “WN homosexuals” is that we must be more tolerant of homosexuality, then they are simply adding their voice to the propaganda of the Jewish media. But maybe they could be useful if they said that, as official homosexuals, they disapprove of the Jewish agenda (supporting gay marriage and the destruction of traditional White society, encouraging teenagers to try homosexual sex, encouraging immigration and interracial sex, encouraging women not to take men’s jobs and not have children, and so on).
If a man has had sexual activities with other men, it doesn’t mean that he necessarily supports immigration, gay marriage and homosexual propaganda at school. There is no reason why he couldn’t be a White Nationalist. On the other hand, if a man is a “cultural homosexual”, someone who likes to hint that he is different from other men, it remains to be seen if he can be helpful to the WN movement.
This is what William Pierce said in one of his radio talks :
(February 2000 – Capitalism and Equality) “Homosexuals, according to the egalitarians, differ in no way from normal men except in the things they do to each other in the privacy of their bedrooms, and since those things are none of our business and have no relationship to anything else they do, we should treat homosexuals just as if they were normal. The fact that the things homosexuals do in their bedrooms are only one facet of a homosexual personality syndrome is something we’re not supposed to notice. We’re not supposed to notice that homosexuals, in fact, are different in their behavior and attitudes from normal men, and that their homosexuality colors every aspect of their lives. We’re supposed to believe that aside from what goes on in the bedroom they’re the same as normal men.”
Armor – thank you for your replies. From your second one:
The real problem is homosexual activism.
The queers at Counter-Currents seem pretty active to me. O’Meara and Donovan, for example, promote homo-eroticism and “male bonding” as classical-historical White behaviors, as does Greg Johnson himself (and others there like Donar Van Holland). Johnson has written a lot about homosexuals place in White Nationalism for someone who refuses to say he is queer. By not saying he isn’t, he definitely transmits that he is.
From your third reply:
But maybe they could be useful if they said that, as official homosexuals, they disapprove of the Jewish agenda (supporting gay marriage and the destruction of traditional White society, encouraging teenagers to try homosexual sex, encouraging immigration and interracial sex, encouraging women not to take mens jobs and not have children, and so on).
I don’t think the above-named can be helpful by not supporting gay marriage (which they don’t). They are against all marriage, they call it “Jewish.” They call all traditional Christians values “Jewish.” They definitely encourage young men to engage in “homo-eroticism” at the very least. They celebrate men who have no need of women and see women only as vehicles for adding to the race, and that women should not be allowed into mens’ affairs at all! This is the mindset of these types of queers who fantasize that they are superior beings who will lead the lesser “marrying kind” into the new Golden Age. And Johnson is on record as saying he publishes their work because they are such “great writers.”
So I don’t see any role for these people. Naturally, they exist and will continue to exist in the White population. But no role as leaders or spokesmen. Thanks for adding the paragraph from Wm. Pierce.
Greg claims he wants people of European descent to be resilient to manipulation against their racial interests, to “step over” the past, but he is asking that the reality of Jewish power form the basis for some sort of recognition of a Holocaust and a recognition of a Jewish right to ethnic self-determination in Israel (he has gone so far as to claim that we have an stake in Israel’s continued existence).
First, there was no Holocaust, and while Jewish deaths might add up to one in Jewish minds, they should not, for us. Granting that myth any basis in reality simply because Jews will whine gives us nothing in the way of any strength or resilience to manipulation. It simply demonstrates our vulnerability in the face of Jewish strength.
Second, from the presumed fact of “universal nationalism” or that all peoples are entitled to ethnic self-determination, it does not follow that Jews are entitled to land in Palestine. For Greg to decry German eastern foreign policy as “imperialism most foul” while granting the Jews a free pass on the murder and expulsion of Palestine’s inhabitants only reveals another layer of contradictions in Greg’s philosophy.
Greg Johnson’s ‘coming out’ essay on the ‘Holocaust’ has much to commend itself in being his self ‘outing’.
Another benefit is to bring the whole topic to the forefront, where it belongs.
He urges us to throw away the hard won accomplishments of revisionists, the conclusive evidence that the ‘Holocaust’ is a gigantic lie. All for what? For nothing. Abandon decades of work and proof so that he can get more donations through charitable tax status.
His, let the jews have their ‘Holocaust’ so that they can hit us over the head non-stop with hoax movies, books, museums, articles and news, is nonsense. Does he really believe that by ‘stepping over’ it that jews will stop smashing White heads with the ‘Holocaust’ hammer? Does he believe in fairies?
We need to be doing the opposite, pushing to the forefront the gigantic jewish lies into White faces. The ‘Holocaust’ is unique in terms of jewish lies, greatly overshadowing their recent big lie, 911. It’s uniqueness, once widely exposed to the general public will help lead to the take down of the stranglehold that jewish power has over us. That is why they suppress it so much.
As for Johnson, I am still considering where he lies along the spectrum of being just ignorant to being a sell out. Probably half way.
Well, it would do for this anti-revisionist to consider the justifications of German policy in removing Jewry from continental Europe. Johnson wallows in Jewish suffering without even considering the very justifiable bases for removing Jews from Germany and Europe. Zuendel made brief remarks regarding domestic German policy after 1933 in his interview conducted by that Israeli journalist, but I think they were poorly formed and without needed comment as regards Jewish actions in Germany and abroad (other than being “irritants”), both long before Adolf Hitler’s appointment in January 1933 and concurrent with the early phases of the NSDAP’s government in that year.
As Johnson concedes, Jews had been making efforts to tear down our societies long before Hitler took office.
This is a poorly explored area from my perspective and it may be something worthy of an extensive essay, in part to counter the kind of nonsense propagated by people like Johnson. Revisionists are not compelled to revise information about the Holocaust because legislation against Jews that culminates in their discomfort is loathsome. What in fact the Jews experienced, which was no Holocaust and no different than what other groups suffered, was a far cry from what they deserved.
”I made it clear in an earlier comment here (which Alex posted in the VNN thread) that Michael Santomauro said that Thomas Dalton told him in a phone call that KMac himself refused to publish his “Reply to Johnson.” This was good enough for me (though not for Henry)”
My apologies Carolyn. I wasn’t really doubting anyone’s word merely wondering if Parrott had involved himself in this with Macdonald perhaps supporting his decision.
Of course, it’s highly unlikely that Parrott (or any other mod) has the power to accept or reject essays at TOO and so my question was stillborn before it was even published.
MacDonald’s position on revisionism became clear for all to see when another poster copied Macdonald’s rejection of another essay in answer to Johnson’s folly.
I might have had some sympathy for Kevin MacDonald’s decision not to involve TOO in open debate about the Holocaust as who knows what threats he’s had to endure for the valuable work he’s done these past years: but he did allow his site to be used as a platform by Johnson to attack revisionism and later also revealed himself as hostile when he refused to give equal billing to a considered repost from Dalton and others.
This smacks of an agenda and I’d like to know how they arrived at their position and if Jared Taylor’s Jewish pal, Robert Weissberg, is lurking somewhere in the background urging them on?
At the last AmRen MacDonald was present to hear Weissberg give a speech attacking white-nationalism wherein he gave his view that such extremism has no chance of receiving vital funding….”Prof. Weissberg also noted that there is no economic advantage to promoting white racial consciousness, and that most people do not act without financial incentives”
I’m sure Weissberg would recommend to MacDonald et al that the Holocaust question be placed in the same ‘vile’ category as white nationalism and thus rejected.
Here’s a summary of Weissbergs address:
”The first speaker Saturday morning was the always stimulating Robert Weissberg, Emeritus professor of University of Illinois at Champaign, who proposed “A Politically Viable Alternative to White Nationalism.” He argued that any movement that is explicitly based on white racial identity is “dead on arrival,” and must be repackaged in order to win successful recognition.
The reality—that racial nationalism “is intuitive and written in our genes” and that even children are conscious of race—is a huge advantage for those who want to build a racial movement, but any white movement today that takes an explicitly racial stand will fail: “We are considered just above child molesters.”
Prof. Weissberg also noted that there is no economic advantage to promoting white racial consciousness, and that most people do not act without financial incentives”
This smacks of an agenda and I’d like to know how they arrived at their position and if Jared Taylor’s Jewish pal, Robert Weissberg, is lurking somewhere in the background urging them on?
If there’s an agenda, it’s probably more to steer clear of problems than to coordinate their political/philosophical positions. ‘For Fear of the Jews’ remains the descriptive term.
Jared Taylor’s featuring Jews as speakers, and others who attend tolerating it, is another matter. Weissberg’s speech was abominable, but he interspersed those offending words in amongst many others so that too many listeners found no fault in them. It’s kind of like what Greg Johnson does.
My apologies Carolyn. I wasn’t really doubting anyone’s word merely wondering if Parrott had involved himself in this with Macdonald perhaps supporting his decision.
Prof. MacDonald’s disinterest in paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery predates my helping him with some technical matters or his publication of Dr. Johnson’s essay.
I used to be concerned about finding ways to convince people who are obsessed about the “Holocaust” to recognize that it’s rapidly waning in influence and fading into historical irrelevance. Then it dawned on me: I don’t have to change anybody’s mind. I just have to wait a couple more decades and everybody who thinks the “Holocaust” is some big important issue to waste a bunch of time and money on will no longer be side-tracking every attempt to focus on core advocacy issues.
Oh, and a big congrats on your successful campaign against Voice of Reason. I’m certainly relieved that it will no longer be transmitting any discourse which fails to meet the demanding standards of this monomaniacal echo chamber.
Prof. MacDonald’s disinterest in paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery predates my helping him with some technical matters or his publication of Dr. Johnson’s essay.
Matt, don’t you think you should know where Johnson got his Ph.D, and in what, before calling him Doctor? Or do you just take his word for it? I don’t doubt that he has one, they’re not that hard to get. I just want to know the institution.
Oh, and a big congrats on your successful campaign against Voice of Reason.
You addressed this comment to Henry, so I guess it’s Henry you’re referring to? And we have to give you credit too, as the person who ditched more shows that he started than anyone else at VoR … by far. So congrats to you, Matt.
Matt, don’t you think you should know where Johnson got his Ph.D, and in what, before calling him Doctor?
No, I don’t. I called him Dr. before it was confirmed for me, because I invest more time and energy in criticizing our enemies than I do our allies. In fact, I even refrain from making spurious accusations against our enemies…much less our allies.
You addressed this comment to Henry, so I guess it’s Henry you’re referring to?
The first part was to Henry. The following was to the network.
And we have to give you credit too, as the person who ditched more shows that he started than anyone else at VoR … by far. So congrats to you, Matt.
I went on a scheduled and unavoidable hiatus for a major life event, and the Friday Show was designed from the beginning to have a flexible and rotating selection of hosts.
But you do have a point there. I may have faltered in my support. There’s more I could have done. But whatever I’ve done wrong, it’s short of active and malicious sabotage of too many dedicated advocates to list.
Matt – Truly you don’t know what you’re talking about. A Ph.D. is tied to the institution that grants it. There is no such thing as a generic Ph.D. Every Ph.D. holder knows this and declares the university and department his came from. Except for our little Greggy Johnson who wants to keep his a secret. Little Greggy would have liked to have kept his name a secret too, but being editor of TOQ was too much to pass by, so he consented to using his real name … maybe. Matt, you ought to be more discriminating. And let me inform readers that I don’t know you, I’ve never met you or spoken to you, I’ve only listened to you on VoR programs.
I went on a scheduled and unavoidable hiatus for a major life event, and the Friday Show was designed from the beginning to have a flexible and rotating selection of hosts.
It wasn’t just this latest Friday Show that you dropped out of. You previously started two shows of your own that didn’t last long, and you were joining Mike Conner on another one, if I recall, but you quickly disappeared from that one too. Carolyn Yeager, on the other hand, was nothing but an asset to Voice of Reason from her first show. She never failed to have a NEW show; never ran re-runs. CY behaved professionally at all times, something I can’t say about Mike Conner, although he mostly did. I haven’t told the story of Mike Conner yet, and I don’t intend to unless I am provoked enough. So watch out. What Mike was saying about me after my “Homosexual Menace” program (which of course came to my attention) was full of falsehoods and self-serving statements. I have it on file. The problems that VoR is having, and has had, are not anything that I am responsible for. I saw it coming, and that’s why I left.
But whatever I’ve done wrong, it’s short of active and malicious sabotage of too many dedicated advocates to list.
I have not been “malicious” and have not carried out any “sabotage.” At The White Network, I was finally free from “fellow hosts’ sensitivities” and could tackle whatever subjects I wanted. None of my shows on tWn were planned in advance; none of it had I even thought about earlier. But I’m proud of the work that I’ve done. A lot of my criticism of people you favor, like Jared Taylor, James Edwards, Paul Gottfried, was done on programs when I was still at VoR. Mike Conner didn’t have any problem with those types of shows until I was no longer on his network. Strange!
So take your “dedicated advocates” talk somewhere else; don’t bother me with it. However, since you’re white, you’re welcome to comment here.
Greg has taken steps to partition parts of his life off to protect himself from exactly this sort of malicious digging and accusing you’re doing. He most likely assumed the heat we be primarily coming from the other side, but you live and learn.
It wasn’t just this latest Friday Show that you dropped out of. You previously started two shows of your own that didn’t last long, and you were joining Mike Conner on another one, if I recall, but you quickly disappeared from that one too.
I had one single show, Radio Free Indiana, which I cancelled after a few months. He then encouraged me to join him as a co-host on The Friday Show, a gig which we planned from the beginning to have a flexible hosting schedule that could work around my planned hiatus. I don’t know where all these other shows are coming from, probably the same fevered imagination most of your other accusations come from, I suppose.
That was the final nail in the coffin for me and this A3P/Amren crowd. Before that, I made excuses for them that they were some kind of gateway nationalism. No more!
They are either fools are straight out traitors to sit through that speech!
Thomas Dalton is wrong about the genocide of White nations. Technically, what is being done to us is really genocide. And Greg Johnson is right to point out that the Jews know what they are doing to us better than anyone else does. Not because they have been genocided themselves, but because they always have that issue on their mind, and their policies revolve around it. For example, they have created Israel to ensure their survival as a race, so they won’t disappear by miscegenation with White people.
My problem with VoR these days is that they are nothing but a vehicle for the Amren/A3P crowd to preach moderation to nationalists.
Furthermore, they seem to care more about Ron Paul then they do our cause. Kelso for example spends a good 75% of his time yapping about the wonders of Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts (and other Patriotards) and kissing the ass of the movement hacks such as Jared Taylor and of course promoting the A3P to send money as if these men are providing anything in the way of leadership whatsoever.
Prof. MacDonald’s disinterest in paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery predates my helping him with some technical matters or his publication of Dr. Johnson’s essay
.
Is that just your own opinion or is it one that Kevin MacDonald also supports?
If he does consider revisionism to be ”paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery” then that’s very interesting as this view reflects the mainstream opinion of MacDonald’s own work on the Jewish question. I believe he’s struggled to have his work accepted for peer review, which must be very frustrating. In fact his work has been univerally condemmed by his peers. So perhaps this is one of those cases where the abused (MacDonald) in turn, became the abuser of others.
Matt,
I’d like your opinion on an email sent by Robert Weissberg in 2007.
Prof. Weissberg hasn’t denied sending this email so there’s no paranoia involved in raising this issue, and one would hope that after seeing its content, you might also feel some anxiety as to Weissberg’s intentions re. AmRn, and white nationalism in general: especially given all that you’ve gained from Prof. MacDonald’s own warnings as to the dangers posed by Jewish group strategy.
Here it is:
An ‘email’ from Robert Weissberg to the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) on the matter of AmRen and “strategy”
Dear Sir:
I see you are trying to organize a disruption of the upcoming American Renaissance meeting. This is a serious mistake and you are hurting Jews.
Let be absolutely clear. I am Jewish, a strong hard-line supporter of Israel, an AIPAC benefactor, and so on and so on. My mother fled Poland in 1938 and she left behind most of her family. I raised both my children Jewish. On the other side, I’ve written for the AR publication and attended several meetings.
You have it all wrong. I’d estimate that there are more than a dozen Jews who regularly attend AR meetings, several who speak at them, and so on. I know Jared Taylor personally and have invited him to eat at my house (and served Kosher wine, to boot).
There is a Nazi element there–the Storm Front–and Jared is trying his best to get rid of them. But, there are also anti-Semitic elements at most major universities–this is a sad fact of modern life.
If you persist in doing what you plan to do, this will be a shanda for the Jews. Cheap thrills, at best. It will only strengthen the few remaining crackpots who openly hate Jews.
Please re-think you strategy. I’ve taught politics for 35 years, including strategy, and this is a terrible idea. There are better ways to fight the enemy.
Best,
Bob
Robert Weissberg
Professor of Political Science-Emeritus
University of Illinois-Urbana
99 Battery Pl. apt 28A
New York, NY 10280
212 945 1964
917 843 2292
Robert Weissberg has not denied sending this email and so from this should be no doubt about the purpose of the Jews at AmRen. Indeed, this raises important questions about Jared Taylor that can’t be ignored and should be answered.
Might I please ask for your help in dealing with the charge from some jews I am arguing with elsewhere regarding Zundel’s being jewish? They are getting this garbage from wikipedia, and I believe is based also on a charge from a jewish jounalist in Toronto, Mark Bonokoski.
The whole basis of the rumor is that Zundel’s maternal grandfather was named Isidor Mayer. That may sound jewy to somebody in North America but Mayer is a perfectly normal German name and Isidor is an Ancient Greek name. This is no basis for claiming that Zundel’s grandfather was a Jew.
Thomas Dalton is wrong about the genocide of White nations. Technically, what is being done to us is really genocide. And Greg Johnson is right to point out that the Jews know what they are doing to us better than anyone else does. Not because they have been genocided themselves, but because they always have that issue on their mind, and their policies revolve around it. For example, they have created Israel to ensure their survival as a race, so they won’t disappear by miscegenation with White people.
1. While what is happening to the White race in the United States can be argued as fitting the United Nations’ definition of genocide, that is not what most people think the word means. For most people genocide means stacks of dead bodies. If you use the UN’s definition you will look like what Greg Johnson called me, a flim-flam artist. Also, you will look weak and foolish, because the whole gist of such an argument is to try to persuade anti-racists to cut White people some slack.
2. Although the claim of ensuring the survival of the Jewish people has been made, the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine is primarily about symbolism. Without the symbolism, Madagascar would be obviously a much better location for a secure Jewish state. The Book of Isaiah says that the Jews will rule their enemies that had tried to destroy them (in their minds, the whole world) from Jerusalem.
Is that just your own opinion or is it one that Kevin MacDonald also supports?
I’m speculating.
If he does consider revisionism to be ”paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery” then that’s very interesting as this view reflects the mainstream opinion of MacDonald’s own work on the Jewish question.
Yes. According to mainstream opinion, MacDonald’s work is quackery; as is Jared Taylor’s, for that matter. Just because we’ve landed in their quackery bucket doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as quackery or that other things which have been popularly dismissed as quackery are something other than quackery.
The line must be drawn somewhere, after all. Witness this network’s show on “delusional thinking”. It’s a show in which stuff which is incorrect is dismissed by somebody who’s herself been dismissed by others as incorrect.
To clarify, we’re all “Holocaust Deniers” relative to the mainstream opinion. My position, which is similar to Greg’s, doesn’t win me any relief from the charge that I’m a “Holocaust Denier”. I don’t hold my opinion as an “angle” or due to concern about appearing too “radical” or “delusional”. I hold it because I’ve researched the matter to a limited extent and found that to be the case.
I’ll never research it to the satisfaction of those who perceive it to be some sort of Excalibur sword in a quest to assuage White Guilt. As I suggested earlier, there’s a generational factor at play which will work itself out over time. The Holocaust Card has been thoroughly maxed out, especially with younger audiences who question its relevance to contemporary issues. Younger mainstream and nationalist audiences alike see it as a smaller and smaller episode in the historical background.
Those who wish to research it are welcome to do so, and I support (with more than just my words) the right of revisionists to study and speak freely about these matters. But I don’t think it belongs at the forefront of white advocacy efforts and I don’t think it’s wise to invest time and energy in it with the hope of reaping benefits for our people.
So perhaps this is one of those cases where the abused (MacDonald) in turn, became the abuser of others.
Respectfully disagreeing (and he’s consistently been more respectful than I’m being at the moment) is not “abuse”.
I’d like your opinion on an email sent by Robert Weissberg in 2007.
I can’t confirm the authenticity, but it seems legitimate. It’s certainly cogent with the rest of what we’ve seen from Weissberg. I’m not quite sure what the revelation is. Jared always has been and likely always will be friendly with a small but vocal cabal of Amreni Jews. Jared was inviting Jews to speak at his conference while I was still in elementary school.
I disagree with Jared about Jews being “White”. I do not believe what they bring to the table (which is admittedly in actuality and in theory impressive) is worth either the potential for misdirection or the exception to a coherent [White = European] definition of Whiteness.
Weissberg’s letter wasn’t a confession that Jared is actually a double agent serving the Jews, but rather that Jared and what he is doing is good for the Jews. I would hope that Amreni Jews see Jared Taylor’s brand of White Advocacy as “good for the Jews”. Weissberg, Jared, myself, you, and everybody else here agree that AmRen is good for the Jews. The JDL and the mainstream Jewish community disagree.
I fail to see the scandal or revelation here.
My own position on Amreni Jews is to to be (genuinely) friendly with those who wish to be friendly with us, and consider Jews allies to the extent that they’re allied with us…at arm’s length. From representatives of one sovereign nation to another. In accordance with consistent ethnic nationalist principles. No close “inner circle” networking. No plotting. No intermarriage or anything like that. A Jew can never be a comrade because he integrally lacks a shared identity with us.
Ulfric,
My problem with VoR these days is that they are nothing but a vehicle for the Amren/A3P crowd to preach moderation to nationalists.
Go back and listen to the multiple shows in which Mike Conner, Greg Johnson, and I positively skewered Ron Paul. VoR was eager to support just about any pro-White vehicle. CofCC is the only other major show in town aside from A3P for formal organizing and they already have The Political Cesspool, so VoR ended up featuring a disproportionate amount of A3P stuff…not through any bias or favor on VoR’s part.
I reject the framing of the Holocaust Debate as one between mainstreamers and radicals. The Holocaust Thing is a distraction, not an overindulgence. It’s a scholarly historical issue disguising itself as a cardinal contemporary political consideration. I would note this very article I’m commenting on as evidence in my case, with the Holocaust Denier blowing off Greg Johnson’s concerns about our impending genocide as absurd.
Step back for a moment and see that not only is Dr. Johnson passionately and consistently opposed to the Jews, but that he is also a more reliable and passionate advocate for our people than Prof. Dalton. You’re allowing this one side issue–whether or not the Holocaust is of pivotal importance–distract you from what we should all agree is the goal: reversing White dispossession. In that matter, Johnson is clearly more radical than Dalton.
Greg has taken steps to partition parts of his life off to protect himself from exactly this sort of malicious digging and accusing you’re doing.
What is “malicious digging and accusing” about expecting a man who calls himself a Ph.D. and allows people to address him as “Doctor” to name the institution of higher learning that is indissolubly associated with his Ph.D? What is “Doctor” Johnson afraid that people will find out? Obviously, he doesn’t want us on his side to know much about him. I believe I know what he is hiding – and you know too and are happy to cover it up – but perhaps there is even more to hide than that.
I repeat what I said on my last radio show, sent to me by correspondent: The whole point of a doctorate is that it is a qualification in a particular discipline, or pseudo-discipline, from a particular institution. Apart from Doctor Feelgood, if a person does not say what their supposed doctorate is in and where it was granted/earned, then they cannot be referred to as “Doctor”.
You, Matt Parrott, pick and choose what you judge important by the criterion of your own advancement in the WN world you desire to be part of. You behave like a groupie, and that is why few people, apart from those you serve, respect you. Other words would be toady or water-carrier.
I had one single show, Radio Free Indiana, which I cancelled after a few months.
You cancelled and then came back again. Here is your schedule of shows: Oct. 14 – Nov. 24, 2010. Then a break. Picking up again on Jan 19, 2011, you did four programs (Jan. 26, Feb. 9, March 9). Then your RFI show ended. When VoR allowed your weekly show to come back two months later, it was so you could promote “Dr.” Greg Johnson’s new book, Confessions …. Here is the blurb for the program:
Matt Parrott gives a brief recap on what’s been going on in Indiana during the break from airing the weekly show then shares an essay he’s recently written, entitled “Cat Lady Logic“. After the break, he interviews Dr. Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, discussing his latest projects and articles from his book, Confessions of a Reluctant Hater.
For a limited time, Lighthouse Literature is offering a special discount of 5% to Radio Free Indiana’s fans who buy the book with the coupon code RFI. Three free excerpts from the book are also available at the site, including the ones discussed in tonight’s podcast.
This last version of RFI lasted from June 3 to June 24, (basically a new attempt for the program) and then you were done – used up. You filled up your last two shows by reading from your manifesto, Hoosier Nation-The Book.
Among those you interviewed during your spotty performance as a radio host were: Dr. David Yeagley, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, John Derbyshire, Jared Taylor, “Dr.” Greg Johnson, Andy Nowicki (one of Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents authors).
You made two appearances as “co-host” on “This Week in Disorganized America” on Nov. 19 and Dec. 3, 2010. The impression I had was that you would be an ongoing part of that program. This was right before Mishko quit in disgust. Believe me, I know all about that.
After this, you showed up again (Poor Mike Conner keeps making the same mistakes again and again) as permanent co-host of the new Friday Show, beginning on Dec. 30, 2011 – one year after your last appearance on VoR. The announcement read: “The main co-hosts will be Mike Conner and Matt Parrott. There may well be other co-hosts, as well as special guests.” I volunteered at the time, and one later time, to be a “guest co-host” on the Friday Show, and was told “Oh, good” but was never asked. Although Robert Stark and Paul Fromm were. Explain that from a point of view of wanting to be successful, will you? It reveals a desire to promote certain VoR personalities over others.
You managed to appear on 20 shows this time before you abandoned ship. Among the guests were the same line-up as you interviewed in the past. You were pretty good in the first few shows, but then you became more and more indifferent.
I don’t know where all these other shows are coming from, probably the same fevered imagination most of your other accusations come from, I suppose.
Now that I’ve explained “all these other shows” you can see it’s not my “fevered imagination” at all, it is your typical downplaying or suppression of what you don’t want brought up. I don’t make anything up, and when I am wrong, I make a point of correcting myself. That’s why criticisms from you and your camp are all generalities and name-calling. You, like Greg and like Mike Conner, have never quoted a single word from me. There’s a reason – if you did, you would expose the truth I have not yet revealed about yourselves and Voice of Reason! (edited this last sentence at 1:30 p.m.)
The Leuchter report was NOT “debunked” or proven worthless, or anything like that. It had a small error or something left out, but that didn’t invalidate it’s conclusions.
There is one section of The Leuchter Report that is problematic, the section that talks about concentrations of HCN gas needed for delousing vs. killing people. Leuchter was no expert on killing insects, and his figures for appropriate gas-concentration in an execution gas-chamber are based on the intention of causing a rapid and humane death, an intention which Holocaustians are not willing to attribute to the evil Germans.
Judge Ron Thomas therefore would not let Leuchter testify about gas-concentrations, but since he had been constructing gas-chambers for a living he was qualified as an expert on the necessary structural characteristics of gas-chambers, wherein the Auschwitz Kremas are conspicuously deficient. If somebody says that Leuchter is no expert you can respond that he was qualified as an expert by a Canadian court.
I am disappointed that Matt Parrott is back to calling revisionism “buffoonery.” I thought he had learned better.
It amazes me that any reasonably informed person could say that the Holohoax is irrelevant when the famous Whitaker Mantra is explicitly about trying to navigate around that propaganda and its effects.
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
I see the interest in Greg Johnson’s past or personal life as an unproductive distraction. The problem with Johnson is with what we can see for ourselves, what he says openly.
The line must be drawn somewhere, after all. Witness this network’s show on “delusional thinking”. It’s a show in which stuff which is incorrect is dismissed by somebody who’s herself been dismissed by others as incorrect.
Matt Parrott – If you persist in using innuendo and implication in referring to that which you don’t want to mention, your comments will not longer be allowed. You have the privilege of posting here, so don’t be an ass.
You are hereby required to come up with what this “somebody” has been incorrect on or about, and by whom, or goodbye Matt Parrott.
Maybe that is the only problem you are interested in, Hadding. But I see other problems. If it wasn’t a problem, it wouldn’t be hidden. This is a book publisher and writer who wants to be taken seriously.
I am disappointed that Matt Parrott is back to calling revisionism “buffoonery.” I thought he had learned better.
To be clear, I’m calling attempts to prop it up as a central issue buffoonery and I’m calling attempts to use it as a litmus test issue among advocates buffoonery. What’s going on here…comrades allies as enemies for failing to toe a sufficiently hard line on revisionism…is buffoonery, is it not?
As for the Mantra, it engages then sets aside the very notion of “White Guilt” as illegitimate…a far more concise and effective strategy than attempting to prove that Whites are historically innocent of every doing anything wrong. In fact, it even implicitly accepts that Nazis killed six million Jews…something which I publicly disagree with.
Carolyn,
You are hereby required to come up with what this “somebody” has been incorrect on or about, and by whom, or goodbye Matt Parrott.
You read too much into what I was saying. My point was that there’s somebody to the left of you saying you’re too extreme and somebody to the right of you saying you’re too moderate.
Don’t bother calling security, I’ll show myself out.
You are hereby required to come up with what this “somebody” has been incorrect on or about, and by whom, or goodbye Matt Parrott.
You read too much into what I was saying. My point was that there’s somebody to the left of you saying you’re too extreme and somebody to the right of you saying you’re too moderate.
As I knew, Parrott cannot come up with what I was supposedly incorrect about or who said it! Instead of admitting it, he says (as his Dr Johnson always does) that I read something into his words that was not there! He reveals his duplicity right there, as all can read what he said.
It’s a show in which stuff which is incorrect is dismissed by somebody who’s herself been dismissed by others as incorrect.
He can’t stand behind his words. He’s a double-talker. And since he knows he came here only to engage in double-talk and has nothing else to offer, he says:
Don’t bother calling security, I’ll show myself out.
It’s a show in which stuff which is incorrect is dismissed by somebody who’s herself been dismissed by others as incorrect
I can see the attempted dig at the back-end of that jibe but I don’t understand how it ties in with the part at the front, unless Matt was being cryptic, in which case, its meaning is beyond me.
Thomas Dalton: “Of course, there will be some who will say “500,000 Jewish deaths is still a Holocaust.” Others will say, “Even one death is a tragedy.” And on a personal level, it is.”
One death wouldn’t be enough to illustrate the perversion of the non-Jews. The holocaust story is about the evilness of the Germans and of any White man who says his grand-parents were not evil degenerates. The question isn’t how much the Jews suffered. If Israel was destroyed by a tsunami or an earthquake, we wouldn’t hear so much about it, because it could not be used as a weapon against White people.
According to the Jews, the starvation of the Ukrainians, the incineration of German civil populations by the allied aviation, and the 50 million casualties of WWII do not matter, as it was all done in good sport. By contrast, the Jews, who say they can read through the White man’s mind, have determined that the Germans had nasty motivations. Their idea was to kill all the Jews, and for no reason at all.
(At least, that is what the media say. Maybe some Jewish “historians” have revised their accusations and now say that the gassing of 6 million Jews was a secret operation that not every German knew about. But the narrative has not been revised in the media, the schoolbooks, the history colleges, and the European courts of justice. The intellectual terrorism goes on.)
Henry – He made it up. He speaks for other people, but when you ask who they are, he won’t name them because he’s making it up. But the show was about incorrect versions of Hitler’s end in the Berlin Bunker; that’s what he’s referring to.
Henry – He made it up. He speaks for other people, but when you ask who they are, he won’t name them because he’s making it up. But the show was about incorrect versions of Hitler’s end in the Berlin Bunker; that’s what he’s referring to
Carolyn, you don’t need to waste your time telling me that.
Regardless of the thinking behind his comment, it was poorly composed, and fell wide of the intended mark.
A bit like his monumental fuck-up (sorry, but sometimes it’s merited) claiming the ‘Holocaust’ is fast-disappearing into the mist of time and space!
A pretend Christian who lies is bad enough. But one such as Matt Parrott, who lies to himself when broadcasting in public, is beyond even Christ’s merciful redemption.
While what is happening to the White race in the United States can be argued as fitting the United Nations’ definition of genocide,
It fits what’s happening in Europe even better.
that is not what most people think the word means. For most people genocide means stacks of dead bodies.
This comes closer to fitting what’s happening to Whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
It seems to me that more awareness is required. More Whites will come to understand that conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part are being deliberately inflicted. The only question is whether enough will understand in time to stop it.
If you use the UN’s definition you will look like what Greg Johnson called me, a flim-flam artist. Also, you will look weak and foolish,
My people are being destroyed. I don’t care what names I’m called or what I look like for resisting.
because the whole gist of such an argument is to try to persuade anti-racists to cut White people some slack.
My arguments are aimed at Whites, not anti-Whites. Nobody is going to save us but ourselves.
To be clear, I’m calling attempts to prop it up as a central issue buffoonery and I’m calling attempts to use it as a litmus test issue among advocates buffoonery. What’s going on here…comrades allies as enemies for failing to toe a sufficiently hard line on revisionism…is buffoonery, is it not?
It’s not failure to take a sufficiently hard line on revisionism that’s the irritant here.
Johnson wrote an essay conspicuous for doubletalk and fuzzy logic, of which the key insight seems to be that White Nationalists could avoid a lot of trouble by not challenging some major elements of Jewish propaganda. No kidding! Why didn’t William Pierce ever think of that?
If Johnson didn’t want to take a stand on revisionism — about which he confesses being not well informed — all he had to do was not write about it.
So Matt, tell me again please, what it is that you call buffoonery?
Are we so far gone that the fact that our race is under attack only matters to our people if they can be assured that it meets some criterion established by the United Nations?
The use of the UN’s definition of genocide is what Bowden called a reverse semiotic. It is not a way to reach our people but rather a way to plead with people that are fundamentally hostile.
It would be interesting to find out what portion of the White population cares in any way about what the UN says. The healthier elements probably care very little. In any case what the UN says only counts when governments want it to count. The State of Israel ignores UN resolutions all the time.
Philosophy and the Paranormal:
Greg Johnson wants to popularize Plato’s art
by Cliff Bostock
(Originally published in the “Paradigms” column of Creative Loafing, Atlanta, Jul. 26, Aug. 2, 1997)
Greg Johnson is trying to create a novel career for himself as a “philosophical consultant.” Having recently completed his Ph.D. dissertation for Catholic University in Washington, Johnson lives in Atlanta where he teaches part time at Morehouse [an all-black college -cy] and through his own organization called “The Invisible College.”
A private historically black liberal arts college for men, Morehouse realizes this mission by emphasizing the intellectual and character development of its students. In addition, the College assumes special responsibility for teaching the history and culture of black people.
Are we so far gone that the fact that our race is under attack only matters to our people if they can be assured that it meets some criterion established by the United Nations?
Are we so far gone that we shouldn’t fight in any way we can? Who are we fighting for? The handful of Whites who can figure things out for themselves without any help?
The UN provides one prominent legal codification of the hostile elite’s moralizing. That moralizing, and the pervasive, empirically anti-White nature of it, are key, not the UN’s imprimatur. As you note, many people aren’t aware (or don’t care) that the UN defines genocide as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. But many have heard about genocide and have internalized that it is bad.
The problem for Whites is that Whites have been conditioned to recognize and oppose the genocide of other peoples. Most Whites fail to identify their own people as needing defense. To the extent they even identify with their own people they have been conditioned to see it as a negative, associated with the genocide of other peoples.
The first step in our defense is to understand that, objectively, the moralizing and legalizing about genocide can apply just as well to ourselves, that Whites can and must defend our own interests. The next step is to realize that the genocide conditioning was never intended to protect Whites. Whites are the bad guys. The conditioning is anti-White, deliberately inflicted, part of how we are being destroyed.
I have taken both steps. I look back and see others as one step behind, not far gone. Our enemy has created and is using a terrible ideological weapon against us. Raising awareness of this blunts the harm and helps turn their investment toward our own defense.
The etymology of the word means killing a nation. It doesn’t mean killing members of that nation. There is a useful quote of Raphael Lemkin who coined the word:
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”
It sounds a little strange because it doesn’t sound at all like a description of Hitler’s policy towards the Jews. It looks more like the description of a policy of forceful assimilation of a small nation by a bigger nation. I guess a number of European countries have tried to do that to the Jews. In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, some Jews like Lemkin probably tried to present the Jewish nation as a minority comparable to the South Tyroleans, the Slovaks or the Sorbs, as if they were Europeans. The emphasis was on the right of a national minority to resist assimilation. I’m sure that the decision of the United Nations to give a definition of genocide had a lot to do with Jewish activism.
What is funny is that Lemkin’s and the United Nations’ definition is completely at odds with today’s Jewish strategy. It is no longer acceptable to compare the Jews with European minorities. The suffering of the Jews is unique. Comparing them to the Tyroleans would be an insult.
Today’s official Jewish narrative is that the Europeans tried to kill all the Jews, and for no reason at all. So, the meaning of the word “genocide” had to be revised. According to the new Jewish definition, genocide is the “systematic killing of a racial or cultural group”. It is a synonym of mass murder. It isn’t difficult to change the dictionary definition. The Jews own a number of publishing houses. Other publishing houses were simply asked to make the change too. At least, I guess it worked like that. It would be interesting to find a 1960 dictionary with a definition of the word genocide.
The United Nations definition can be useful. If I argue with people that the government wants to kill the White race, they will tell me that I’m out of my mind. If I mention the UN definition and some demographic predictions, I may be more convincing.
The observation that Kant derived ideas from Swedenborg is not original with Greggy. Nietzsche mentioned it in one of his books.
I find it amusing that a man with a doctorate in philosophy had to be lectured by me on the importance of defining terms (like “the Holocaust”) to be used in any discussion that is to have any hope of a clear outcome. As a philosopher Greg Johnson is a quack.
Building Bodies is an exciting collection of articles that strive toward constructing theoretical models in which power, bodies, discourse, and subjectivity interact in a space we can call the “built” body, a dynamic, politicized, and biological site. Contributors discuss the complex relationship between body building and masculinity, between the built body and the racialized body, representations of women body builders in print and in film, and homoeroticism in body building. Linked by their focus on the sport and practice of body building, the authors in this volume challenge both the way their various disciplines (media studies, literary criticism, gender studies, film and sociology) have gone about studying bodies, and existing assumptions about the complex relationship between power, subjectivity, society, and flesh. Body building – in practice, in representation, and in the cultural imagination – serves as an launching point because the sport and practice provide ready challenges to existing assumptions about the “built” body. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558843.Building_Bodies
Cliff Bostock – ” Next week, I’ll conclude this series on new forms of psychological growth with an interview with philosopher Greg Johnson. The two of us will be engaging in a public dialog at Borders in Buckhead at 7 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 22.” http://www.pantheatre.com/archives/pages/writings_cliff.htm
No, I don’t think you are the only one Carolyn, lol.
This whole episode is proving to be an incredibly important ‘line in the sand’ for many I would think.
I find it fascinating, as along with what’s happening here, Alex Linder and Greg Johnson have quite the conversation going on over at VNN….
This story just in. This is the kind of activism we need. And people need to get their heads clear about this issue.
MOSCOW (AP) — Some Russian activists have sued Madonna for millions of dollars, claiming they were offended by her support for gay rights during a recent concert in St. Petersburg.
Anti-gay sentiment is strong in Russia. In St. Petersburg, a law passed in February makes it illegal to promote homosexuality to minors, and the author of that law has pointed to the presence of children as young as 12 at Madonna’s concert on Aug. 9.
Russian news agencies quote Alexander Pochuyev, a lawyer representing the nine activists, as saying the suit was filed Friday against Madonna, the organizer of her concert, and the hall where it was held, asking for damages totaling 333 million rubles, or nearly $10.5 million.
Responding to criticism that the plaintiffs were stuck in the Middle Ages, the lawyer said they were using civilized, modern methods to defend their rights. “No one is burning anyone at the stake or carrying out an Inquisition,” Pochuyev was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying. “Modern civilization requires tolerance and respect for different values.”
The complaint includes a video taken at the concert showing Madonna stomping on an Orthodox cross and asking fans to raise their hands to show the pink armbands in support of gays and lesbians that were distributed among the audience, the new agency reported.
Madonna also has angered conservative Russians with her support for Pussy Riot. Three members of the punk band were sentenced Friday to two years in prison for a protest inside Moscow’s main cathedral against Vladimir Putin and his cozy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. [what biased wording from the AP! These women were not engaging in “freedom of speech” but in desecration. I wonder what would happen if 3 members of a revisionist band went into the Auschwitz Memorial Museum in Poland and “protested” in the manner the Pussy-girls did in the cathedral?-cy]
Madonna spoke out in support of the group during her concert in St. Petersburg and two days earlier in Moscow. After the verdict was issued, Madonna called on “all those who love freedom to condemn this unjust punishment.”
Speaking of the “gay” lifestyle, this fellow gives us a real clear idea. He wants to move to Seattle but is afraid it won’t work out as he hopes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSklJMz_BY
Skip to: 7min 15sec to 8min 40sec, and then again 18:50 to the end. I have to admit I am repulsed by him because he is not a man, not a White man. He’s an aberrant male human being who in no way inspires respect, but, at best, sympathy. Can we afford to allow him to be a model for our males … to exhibit himself in public as perfectly normal and “okay?” I don’t think so.
It’s not good enough to just be White. Within the White community, we have to have other standards too.
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.
I am amused that Dalton felt it necessary to treat every point that Johnson made with seriousness.
Only people heavily immersed in self-delusion could accept the proposition that adopting the victim-posture ourselves could be in the long term a winning strategy.
Johnson’s essay was so bad that he was basically booed off the stage. I wonder why Dalton even felt that it was worthy of a response. Isn’t Dalton supposed to be “somebody”? Greg Johnson is almost beneath my dignity at this point, and I never wrote any famous book.
I felt the same as I began reading it, but you know that fellow PhD’s have to treat each other with respect and always find something positive to say at the beginning. Beyond taking Johnson too seriously, Dalton did go farther in this “rebuttal” about Jewish guilt than I’ve ever heard any revisionist go. Or, at least, anyone at CODOH-sponsored Inconvenient History Journal. I think it’s fabulous in that regard. He is actually saying what I’ve been saying: The Germans were defending themselves against Jewish crimes! The Jews cannot be tolerated in White European societies.
Dalton is a University professor or teaches in some capacity, who uses this pseudonym. He is pretty courageous, therefore. He’s obviously not a libertarian moderate who thinks we can be friendly with Jews, as so many there do. I think what he wrote here will become controversial in both Revisionist and White Nationalist circles. I don’t think you should be putting Dalton down for minor flaws.
It’s possible Dalton decided to respond to Johnson’s essay in order to give out these views about the Jews. He’s never said anything close to this before, as far as I know. And I’ve read a lot of his stuff.
In 2010 he did a 2-part study of Goebbel’s “Diary” in Inconvenient History that kept me interested. http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_1/goebbels_on_the_jews.php I’ve written a couple of emails (via Inc. His. contact form) to him which he doesn’t answer because he’s in “deep cover.”
“Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.” says that Goebbels’ “diaries are absolutely essential for understanding the Jewish holocaust.”
Mr. Ph.D. doesn’t seem to know, writing in 2010, that the “Goebbels Diaries” were already exposed as fraudulent (in whole or at least in parts) by 1988. http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2011/01/goebbels-diaries-are-fake.html
Well, his PhD is not in Holocaust Revisionism, haha.
Dalton writes, regarding the false argument about whether the Holohoax is the “source of Jewish power” or simply an “expression” of that power:
This is what I said Monday night in relation to the ADL – that “Holocaust Denial” is their No. 1 enemy. It’s clear that it is. But Greg Johnson is a know-nothing on Holocaust who believes he can pass himself off as an expert in everything. Like you, Hadding, my opinion of him has plummeted so low that it may even go to zero. I really think he is finished because he has been “found out”, but it will take awhile for him and his followers to grasp that. Of course, many others keep going even after that so what the heck … he probably will too. But his star will never shine so bright again. And that’s as it should be.
This VNN thread is where you will see Greg Johnson coming apart at the seams even more so that he did in the TOO comments section. http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074 People should go through this and read Greg’s posts, and also Hadding’s. They really tell the story.
A very solid response by Dalton. Good to see a well known revisionist respond to Johnson’s essay.
As Carolyn and Hadding have commented, Dalton’s introductory remarks — “Greg Johnson’s concise and articulate essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust”, is to be commended for grappling intelligently with two very controversial topics: White Nationalism and the Holocaust.”— seem a little too kind given the skewering that follows. I suspect there’s some undercover sarcasm involved here with Dalton, as Johnson’s essay was surely not ‘concise’ nor what I would call ‘intelligent’.
But Johnson is intelligent (which doesn’t stop you from doing stupid things BTW), so what’s behind his essay? One big motive looks like his aim to get Counter Currents classified as an organization that allows donors to claim tax deductions. To get such classification would mean distancing ones organization from accusations of being a den of ‘Holocaust’ deniers. Proof of that would be helped by writing the article he did and then stirring the pot. No doubt there are other motives.
But enough of Johnson’s games. Let’s turn to Dalton’s concise and intelligent killer comments.
————
By Thomas Dalton
July 31, 2012
Because the power structure has no response to revisionism except censorship, the general public, and whites in particular, can be given a “proof,” of sorts, of Jewish duplicity. The Holocaust is a canonical case of Jewish deception and manipulation, and revisionism lays bare that fact. Many of the central revisionist arguments are clear and obvious; they require little in the way of specialized knowledge. Any non-Jew with a shred of rationality can be shown that they have been largely (though not completely) duped; this should make any thinking person more than a little angry.
———
This is pure and concise poetry!
People will be more than a little angry when they realize they’ve been taken for a very long ride, conned and scammed all the way.
————–
The fact that Jewish fatality numbers never will go to zero, as Johnson emphasizes, does not really matter. The likely death toll is perhaps 10% of the claimed figures. A 90% reduction in deaths is not just some minor fiddling around the edges; it is a wholesale collapse of “the most well-documented event in history.” Those who have staked their careers and incomes on this event will be in for a rude awakening.
————–
Another gem of a paragraph.
Johnson thinks numbers don’t matter much, jewish suffering is jewish suffering, so let them have their ‘holocaust’ and 100,000 museums and movies and books and essays and, ad nauseam. Step aside, over and under. Total BS.
I think what he really means by ‘step over’ is ‘start crawling’.
Thank you Thomas Dalton.
Katana, Hadding and all: I am not able to find this article posted on the Internet except by Michael Santomauro at a Yahoo Discussion Group on which he is a regular. Santomauro is the publisher of Dalton’s book Debating the Holocaust. I have made some inquiries and will let you know what I find out. It’s all just a little bit strange.
I just received a reply from Michael Santomauro telling me that Thomas Dalton sent him (Michael) the essay “Nationalism and the Holocaust – A Reply to Johnson,” which was rejected by Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer.
So friends, know that a reply to Greg Johnson by a respected revisionist was turned down at the site where Johnson’s article was published. Is that bias or not? So apparently Dalton sent it to Michael to do something with. I am the only person who has published it … so far. Anyone who can should spread it around.
I’m very gratified that Thomas Dalton is the author. So we can relax about that.
“Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool.”
It seems to me that what they really fear is getting caught out in a lie. How can anyone quantify guilt ? Who feels guilty for the Holocaust ? I don’t know anyone of the post war generation feeling guilty. Surely getting discredited and the righteous indignation that would arise if enough people “get it” is what they are afraid of ? Their trickery gets exposed and their enemies (everyone) start to wise up about their shenanigans.
The Holocaust is their Achilles Heel and therefore should be attacked at every opportunity. The Holocaust Lie exposes the Jew for what he is, dishonest. The dishonest fear discovery more than anything. Their fear of exposure is so great they have gone to the extreme length of corrupting our legal systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZlEXiyt8Q&feature=related
I think Organized Jewry is much more bothered by revisionism that has no hint of hostility toward Jews about it. Look at Ernst Zundel: he’s all about truth and reconciliation, and they probably hate him more than anybody.
I think Deborah Lipstadt emphasizes the implicit accusation of dishonesty in revisionism because it suits her purpose to find a way to represent revisionism as more of an anti-Jew movement than a pro-truth movement.
I like the article and I’m glad someone with credentials went to the trouble of writing a response to Greg’s article. It could very well be that TOO thought Greg had taken enough beating already. I will post this on my tiny, little site.
This is excellent: Jews don’t just work against whites; they work against everyone.
This is very good: The lackeys have done, and continue to do, much of the legwork in protecting the orthodox Holocaust story, and in defending Jews generally. And because they are predominantly white, they pose a special challenge to White Nationalism. Downplaying revisionism lets these folks off the hook. This also explains why non-Whites see Whites as a problem.
But this I’m wonder about (is it true Carolyn?):all the while knowing that many would die in the wartime conditions. If the NS didn’t care if Jews died why all the trouble trying to eliminate typhus or executing Koch or bothering with hospitals in the camps?
I would revise a few things in the article.
Ernst Zundel applauds Hitler and National Socialism. He also was the most effective spokesman for the holohoax idea and was building up a large following. That’s why they hate him more than anybody … not because he wasn’t hostile toward Jews. Many revisionists are not hostile toward Jews per se.
Yes, it’s not perfect. The question might be asked: Was it up to the Germans to protect every Jew from harm during the war, when other groups and even Germans could not be protected? It’s a ridiculous manner of speaking, but it’s become commonplace to say things like that. Good for you for noticing it.
Ernst Zundel is totally mild-mannered, not hostile to Jews. He sat and interviewed the Jew, Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, who also praises Hitler. The point is that Zundel is outwardly nonthreatening and states his mission as redeeming the honor of his people. It’s a defensive demand for truth and justice and, Zundel will say, reconciliation, not essentially an attack of any kind.
The fundamental utility of revisionism to nationalists has always been to dispel anti-nationalist propaganda-lies. In other words it’s defensive, but it’s also an education toward a clearer view of reality.
Deborah Lipstadt says that revisionism is fundamentally about attacking Jews. I would suggest not helping Lipstadt on that.
The Jews are not fooled by that. As I said, Zundel was more effective than anyone else. That’s what counts.
Truly, I don’t think we should be concerned with Deborah Lipstadt.
This entire episode (I only read Greg’s article after it was linked on Occidental Dissent a few days ago) has been fascinating to witness. The thread on VNN with contributions from Hadding, Carolyn, and Alex, contrasted with the responses from Greg, are illuminating.
As well as that I found Alex’s insights on the source and nature of so-called ‘White guilt’ powerful. Although I ‘knew’ it already, I ‘know’ it now in an entirely new way. It’s freeing.
And infuriating.
ps: I feel sorry for Greg Johnson at this stage.
I can’t believe he thinks what he does on this, despite all that has been said, but apparently he really does.
So be it.
Mary – I did not have any posts on the VNN thread. I’m not registered there. Alex Linder did post my article “Everything Greg Johnson knows about Holocaust Revisionism he learned from Mark Weber” and used it to make points. As did Johnson, who had to respond to it. Johnson brought me up several times in a cowardly, accusing way (along with Hadding), without ever quoting from me, but I have only ever quoted directly from his own writings in anything I’ve written or spoken about him. I find his insinuations that Hadding and I are being paid “by our enemies” to “cyber-stalk” him a very childish way to defend himself.
Hadding came up with a good phrase. He told me he now saw Greg Johnson as gifted only with a “superficial eclecticism.”
P.S. I see now that Alex copied some comments by me from here, so that it kind of looks like I’m posting there.
Now I see that Greg Johnson, in his blog about the CC Fundraiser, has changed the title of his essay to “Understanding the Holocaust” from “Dealing with the Holocaust.” He’s already re-arranging his history?
You persist in missing the point. Zundel was effective largely because he was nonthreatening. Do you really think he was trying to fool anybody? I think he might find that a little insulting.
I refer to Deborah Lipstadt only as a witness to the fact that a nonthreatening revisionist is exactly what organized Jewry can least tolerate, while the opposite interpretation of revisionism as merely an expression of malice toward Jews is what they want and need.
Nonthreatening of course is not to say unrigorous. Somebody that presents the revisionist case matter-of-factly is going to be a lot more convincing to almost everybody than somebody that seems to have a visceral hatred of Jews. An audience assumes that somebody driven by hatred surely has twisted the facts.
Yes Carolyn, your contributions were re-posted, but fit in so well on there too that I just wanted to make mention of them.
As for Johnson, well,I agree with the assessment that he made a very bad judgement call by writing this essay and now he is paying for it. I guess it’s no wonder he will want to try and frame things in as positive a way as possible (for himself of course; ha) given what the fallout has already cost him.
Ps: I am a bit ashamed to admit this, but I had never visited Ernst Zundel’s website before. Although I knew his name, I really didn’t know much about him.
Tonight I watched the documentary ‘Off Your Knees Germany’…and I am still in shock, what an incredibly inspiring man! He truly is a modern day martyr. I mean it was even like watching a love story too, with all that his wife did. I really loved it although it of course has my blood boiling.
“We are condemned to WIN”–brilliant.
I ‘ve posted this response to Greg Johnson’s response on Alex Linders’ VNN site.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074&page=15
———-
#283
Greg Johnson wrote:
>1. Revisionists themselves concede that many innocent Jews died in WW II, and that is “Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes…
>2. … In the end, I think that the facts are on the Jewish side, in the sense that even if all the after-the-fact lies deducted from the story, there’s still “Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes.
>3. … I would like whites to become serenely indifferent to guilt trips and moral blackmail, no matter what our people have done in the past. A race with the vitality and will to power to project future cannot be tied to past negatives.
——-
Please quantify what you think is ‘”Holocaust enough” for Jewish purposes’.
Is 500,000 dead as a result of disease, starvation and other general consequences of a breakdown in basic infrastructure, along with no genocidal plan and of course no gas chambers? Are these the facts that you think are on the jewish side? I really don’t think so.
Give us some concrete minimum criteria (instead of constant evasions) of what you think jews would accept as a ‘Holocaust’.
What is the minimum combination that you (or jews) think, constitutes a ‘Holocaust’?
Your opinions on this have vague generalizations about them, because as you have said elsewhere you really don’t have much of an interest in the topic and have not studied it.
Your being ‘serenely indifferent … no matter what our people have done in the past’ idea sounds a little like you’re suggesting a psychopathic attitude. Guilt is good if it stems from real crimes. But creating endless guilt based on gigantic lies broadcast everyday of our lives by jewish media propaganda is criminal abuse. And this is what you are condoning (by ‘stepping over’), the continuing abuse by jewish media of Whites through jewish ‘Holocaust’ lies. Whites have a guilty conscience because they are being told non-stop, cradle to grave, by jewish media that Whites are evil.
Another thing is your disrespect to Revisionists by your advice. They have labored away, suffering persecution, through jail sentences, loss of jobs and so on because they believed in the need for the truth to come out: that the ‘holocaust’ is in actual fact a hoax. So you come along, in confessed ignorance, and dismiss them with “Holocaust enough” talk.
Step over your own ignorance and study the ‘Holocaust’ properly and come back in six months with Version 2 of your essay.
——–
About recent topics (Holocaust, Voice of Reason, Homosexuality) :
Greg Johnson would like to build up a movement called the American New Right, but so far, he is mainly the editor of a blog that publishes old and new articles, as well as books. That is useful work. I disagree with his article “Dealing with the Holocaust”, but I still like other articles that he writes or publishes. He and others bring up original ideas that I haven’t thought of, or information that I didn’t know about. I try to remember what I agree with, and I don’t have to pay attention to the rest. It’s not as if it was a political party that I was a member of. It doesn’t matter all that much what Greg Johnson says about the holocaust. He doesn’t have a large following of people who will align themselves with his personal positions. And in fact, he did good work about the holocaust thing by publishing Irmin Vinson, as well as his own articles about Hitler. When he writes good stuff, that’s great. When he writes nonsense, it can be ignored. If he starts writing too much nonsense, I will simply stop reading his blog.
I think the case of Voice of Reason Radio is different. It’s interesting to have Robert Stark do interviews of people that we don’t get to listen to in the mainstream media. Keith Preston is interesting too. But if you are part of a project to defend White people and fight race-replacement, it’s better not to associate with non-Whites, and with people who don’t care at all about the White cause. You can give them interviews, but not as part of your pro-White project. It wouldn’t matter if Robert Stark did interviews of Jewish people on some other internet radio station.
About homosexuality. Homosexuality isn’t good for society, but I think it doesn’t matter if there are White Nationalists who are gay-friendly while other White Nationalists insist on the necessity to discourage homosexuality. In the current situation, the Jewish media speak in the name of White people, of women, of young people, of the Blacks, of the workers, of homosexuals, and so on. But in fact, they are betraying every group of people they claim to defend. Their real agenda is race replacement. So, I think it can be useful to have a few White Nationalists who say they are into homosexuality but still resist the Jews.
#296
Alex Linder wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Organon
Here is the brief email reply Kevin MacDonald wrote to me:
From: Kevin MacDonald
Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Another Submission
I am sorry, but I do not have sympathy for this line of argument. IMO, revisionism is a waste of time. Kevin M
————-
Thanks for confirming that, Organon. He might as reasonably say his own works are a waste of time, since a good part of them involves digging up history the kikes have deliberately hidden or lied about.
Note again how the Ph.D. is taken in by words. “Revisionism” is a waste of time. That’s equivalent to saying the facts are a waste of time. Even when they’re used to refute big lies that are the basis of group libel? Even when those libels are used to abuse white children daily? It is his line of argument that leads nowhere, and as with Greg, his real motive is not intellectual, it is personal.
===========================
Interesting information Alex. So Kevin MacDonald thinks “revisionism is a waste of time.”
Well that dashes my thoughts that he was just lying low to avoid ‘questioning’ from jewish inquisitors. Maybe he’s lying much lower than that. He has a career, a reputation, a high income and so on. All enough worth not crossing some lines, and all for what? He has done a lot with his books and web site.
Can someone point out where he has discussed such a viewpoint? In any case I think he’s quite wrong. Probably for the same reason that Greg Johnson is wrong.
What Prof Kevin MacDonald should do is write an essay telling us why Revisionism is a waste of time. An essay not in Greg Johnson’s style of long winded and twisted evasion, but in ordinary straightforward language that us plebs can understand.
Armor – What does it mean to be “into homosexuality?”
First you make a clear statement: “Homosexuality isn’t good for society.” Then you continue that they’re okay if they’re WN – they can be useful. That leaves me confused.
Earlier in your comment, you said:
After discovering the “real” Greg Johnson, first in the comments to “Dealing with the Holocaust” (which he’s now calling “Understanding the Holocaust” [given it’s his own article, I can’t quite believe he just remembered it wrongly, although that is possible]) and now in his posts in the long thread at VNN under consideration here, I can no longer like anything he writes or has written. Why? Because he is a slippery “superficial eclectic” who has no original ideas, but clearly steals from any source he finds convenient. He seldom give credit, thus he poses as an original thinker. More on this later.
Hadding – I’m not missing your point. Zundel was ‘nonthreatening’ to whom? White people, right? Not the Jews. The Jews were very threatened by him, that is why they were pitiless in punishing him. They are still afraid of him, which is why the ADL wants to shut down the Zundelsite.
You miss my point when you say “Do you really think he was trying to fool anybody?” Of course HE was not trying to fool anybody. What I said was: the fact that Whites and even non-Whites found him likable and sincere did not fool the Jews as to his harmlessness. How effective you are in waking up the folk is all Jews care about. That’s all we should care about, too.
Not every revisionist can be like Zundel, so they shouldn’t try. Every revisionist should function according to their own lights and personality. For some reason, you don’t like or you want to criticize Thomas Dalton. I now like Thomas Dalton more than ever and I hope he can convince other of his colleagues to go more in his (new?) direction. Well … I hope he doesn’t back away from it.
I made it clear in an earlier comment here (which Alex posted in the VNN thread) that Michael Santomauro said that Thomas Dalton told him in a phone call that KMac himself refused to publish his “Reply to Johnson.” This was good enough for me (though not for Henry), since KMac has been known for some time to keep anything about the “Holocaust” away from him. This goes along with his rejection of anything to do with “Nazis” or even WWII revisionism.
What is the real source of this strong aversion? Don’t know, but it’s nothing new.
For KMac, it’s okay to publish anti-revisionist articles (like Greg’s), but not rebuttals to it, even when they are in the full “scholarly” mode by another Ph.D. MacDonald is going to be a speaker at Johnson’s upcoming ‘retreat’, unless he has cancelled. Mark Weber also. These three are all in accord now.
Anyone who questions the holocaust is a threat to the Jew, mild mannered or not. The Big Jew knows the gig is up concerning the holocau$t. They are in damage control mode now and so the sleepers are waking up and making statements like “German Jews didn’t want world Jewry to go to war”… of course not, they wanted to continue fleecing the Real Germans. They (the sleepers) will also be pushing the idea that the Jews have been traumatized by the holocaust story too, just like everyone else so they are really not to blame (poor souls)…So lets see them pay back the billions that went to them (and only them) because of the Big Lie. Lets see them renounce their minority status. I will believe that Jews want to be equal members of humanity when they are willing to publically declare themselves Jews (say by adding *sky* to their surnames), this would make things transparent now wouldn’t it? Of course nothing can ever bring back the hundreds of millions who have died because of Jewish tribalism. Acknowledging their complicity is a start to the healing process for them as well as for us.
Have you never listened to Zundel? He is nonthreatening to Jews as such. Zundel talks about reconciliation.
One thing that organized Jewry, with its entrenched adversarial posture toward White people, cannot stand, is reconciliation. With reconciliation Jewish solidarity against the rest of the world, based on paranoia, collapses.
The last thing a paranoiac wants to hear is that his fear is not valid, because he needs that fear to hold himself together. If you are nice and try to convince him that there is nothing to fear he will regard you as trying to trick him into letting down his guard, and he will see you as the most dangerous enemy of all.
The more nonthreatening the revisionist, the more obvious the paranoid reaction of the Jewish leadership becomes.
Hadding and Carolyn:
Might I please ask for your help in dealing with the charge from some jews I am arguing with elsewhere regarding Zundel’s being jewish? They are getting this garbage from wikipedia, and I believe is based also on a charge from a jewish jounalist in Toronto, Mark Bonokoski.
Second: I went ahead and used the Leuchter report without having done enough research into his background, and am now in a bit of a corner, haha, as his findings are being laughed at by quite a few on there now.
Are there some good sources to use when arguing this material?
Thanks in advance.
(Carolyn, if you prefer to have this discussed somewhere else I am fine with you deleting this )
Hear, hear, Helvena. They very much want to escape blame, don’t they? That is probably what we should be keeping watch on … how they’re going about it.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying – Zundel was seen by Jews as most dangerous. But I think it’s just as much that he was so effective in opening people’s eyes. Maybe we’re just both trying to hard to make a point. I quit.
No, it’s fine Mary. It will educate all. But Hadding knows Zundel much better than I (even met him) and probably knows more about the Leuchter report also. But Zundel is not Jewish — I never even heard that before. I’ll have to look up his wiki page.
But don’t let those Jews intimidate you. The Leuchter report was NOT “debunked” or proven worthless, or anything like that. It had a small error or something left out, but that didn’t invalidate it’s conclusions. Germar Rudolf repeated the tests, correcting what was left out with Leuchter, and got the same results. Leuchter stands as being the first to demonstrate the blue stains on the wall phenomena. A great man of truth.
I hope Hadding answers you.
“Zundel talks about reconciliation.”
I read his book “Letters from Cell #7” and watched a bunch of video with him. I never noticed that. But the CODOH philosophy is willing to reconcile with Jews, even though Jews are totally hateful to CODOH. Bradley Smith told me he would reconcile with Mark Weber if MW showed any interest. The reconciliation posture doesn’t work and that’s why I don’t like it.
“What does it mean to be “into homosexuality?”
I mean people who publicly talk a lot about their homosexuality. It isn’t always clear if it’s about sex or politics. Theoretically, if it is only about their sexual activity, they don’t really need to tell us about it.
“First you make a clear statement: “Homosexuality isn’t good for society.”
Because it is an obvious obstacle to founding stable families. But if it remains uncommon, it doesn’t matter. The real problem is homosexual activism.
“Then you continue that they’re okay if they’re WN – they can be useful.”
If the main message of “WN homosexuals” is that we must be more tolerant of homosexuality, then they are simply adding their voice to the propaganda of the Jewish media. But maybe they could be useful if they said that, as official homosexuals, they disapprove of the Jewish agenda (supporting gay marriage and the destruction of traditional White society, encouraging teenagers to try homosexual sex, encouraging immigration and interracial sex, encouraging women not to take men’s jobs and not have children, and so on).
If a man has had sexual activities with other men, it doesn’t mean that he necessarily supports immigration, gay marriage and homosexual propaganda at school. There is no reason why he couldn’t be a White Nationalist. On the other hand, if a man is a “cultural homosexual”, someone who likes to hint that he is different from other men, it remains to be seen if he can be helpful to the WN movement.
This is what William Pierce said in one of his radio talks :
(February 2000 – Capitalism and Equality)
“Homosexuals, according to the egalitarians, differ in no way from normal men except in the things they do to each other in the privacy of their bedrooms, and since those things are none of our business and have no relationship to anything else they do, we should treat homosexuals just as if they were normal. The fact that the things homosexuals do in their bedrooms are only one facet of a homosexual personality syndrome is something we’re not supposed to notice. We’re not supposed to notice that homosexuals, in fact, are different in their behavior and attitudes from normal men, and that their homosexuality colors every aspect of their lives. We’re supposed to believe that aside from what goes on in the bedroom they’re the same as normal men.”
Armor – thank you for your replies. From your second one:
The queers at Counter-Currents seem pretty active to me. O’Meara and Donovan, for example, promote homo-eroticism and “male bonding” as classical-historical White behaviors, as does Greg Johnson himself (and others there like Donar Van Holland). Johnson has written a lot about homosexuals place in White Nationalism for someone who refuses to say he is queer. By not saying he isn’t, he definitely transmits that he is.
From your third reply:
I don’t think the above-named can be helpful by not supporting gay marriage (which they don’t). They are against all marriage, they call it “Jewish.” They call all traditional Christians values “Jewish.” They definitely encourage young men to engage in “homo-eroticism” at the very least. They celebrate men who have no need of women and see women only as vehicles for adding to the race, and that women should not be allowed into mens’ affairs at all! This is the mindset of these types of queers who fantasize that they are superior beings who will lead the lesser “marrying kind” into the new Golden Age. And Johnson is on record as saying he publishes their work because they are such “great writers.”
So I don’t see any role for these people. Naturally, they exist and will continue to exist in the White population. But no role as leaders or spokesmen. Thanks for adding the paragraph from Wm. Pierce.
Edit on 8/13
Greg claims he wants people of European descent to be resilient to manipulation against their racial interests, to “step over” the past, but he is asking that the reality of Jewish power form the basis for some sort of recognition of a Holocaust and a recognition of a Jewish right to ethnic self-determination in Israel (he has gone so far as to claim that we have an stake in Israel’s continued existence).
First, there was no Holocaust, and while Jewish deaths might add up to one in Jewish minds, they should not, for us. Granting that myth any basis in reality simply because Jews will whine gives us nothing in the way of any strength or resilience to manipulation. It simply demonstrates our vulnerability in the face of Jewish strength.
Second, from the presumed fact of “universal nationalism” or that all peoples are entitled to ethnic self-determination, it does not follow that Jews are entitled to land in Palestine. For Greg to decry German eastern foreign policy as “imperialism most foul” while granting the Jews a free pass on the murder and expulsion of Palestine’s inhabitants only reveals another layer of contradictions in Greg’s philosophy.
Greg Johnson’s ‘coming out’ essay on the ‘Holocaust’ has much to commend itself in being his self ‘outing’.
Another benefit is to bring the whole topic to the forefront, where it belongs.
He urges us to throw away the hard won accomplishments of revisionists, the conclusive evidence that the ‘Holocaust’ is a gigantic lie. All for what? For nothing. Abandon decades of work and proof so that he can get more donations through charitable tax status.
His, let the jews have their ‘Holocaust’ so that they can hit us over the head non-stop with hoax movies, books, museums, articles and news, is nonsense. Does he really believe that by ‘stepping over’ it that jews will stop smashing White heads with the ‘Holocaust’ hammer? Does he believe in fairies?
We need to be doing the opposite, pushing to the forefront the gigantic jewish lies into White faces. The ‘Holocaust’ is unique in terms of jewish lies, greatly overshadowing their recent big lie, 911. It’s uniqueness, once widely exposed to the general public will help lead to the take down of the stranglehold that jewish power has over us. That is why they suppress it so much.
As for Johnson, I am still considering where he lies along the spectrum of being just ignorant to being a sell out. Probably half way.
Well, it would do for this anti-revisionist to consider the justifications of German policy in removing Jewry from continental Europe. Johnson wallows in Jewish suffering without even considering the very justifiable bases for removing Jews from Germany and Europe. Zuendel made brief remarks regarding domestic German policy after 1933 in his interview conducted by that Israeli journalist, but I think they were poorly formed and without needed comment as regards Jewish actions in Germany and abroad (other than being “irritants”), both long before Adolf Hitler’s appointment in January 1933 and concurrent with the early phases of the NSDAP’s government in that year.
As Johnson concedes, Jews had been making efforts to tear down our societies long before Hitler took office.
This is a poorly explored area from my perspective and it may be something worthy of an extensive essay, in part to counter the kind of nonsense propagated by people like Johnson. Revisionists are not compelled to revise information about the Holocaust because legislation against Jews that culminates in their discomfort is loathsome. What in fact the Jews experienced, which was no Holocaust and no different than what other groups suffered, was a far cry from what they deserved.
Carolyn said:
”I made it clear in an earlier comment here (which Alex posted in the VNN thread) that Michael Santomauro said that Thomas Dalton told him in a phone call that KMac himself refused to publish his “Reply to Johnson.” This was good enough for me (though not for Henry)”
My apologies Carolyn. I wasn’t really doubting anyone’s word merely wondering if Parrott had involved himself in this with Macdonald perhaps supporting his decision.
Of course, it’s highly unlikely that Parrott (or any other mod) has the power to accept or reject essays at TOO and so my question was stillborn before it was even published.
MacDonald’s position on revisionism became clear for all to see when another poster copied Macdonald’s rejection of another essay in answer to Johnson’s folly.
I might have had some sympathy for Kevin MacDonald’s decision not to involve TOO in open debate about the Holocaust as who knows what threats he’s had to endure for the valuable work he’s done these past years: but he did allow his site to be used as a platform by Johnson to attack revisionism and later also revealed himself as hostile when he refused to give equal billing to a considered repost from Dalton and others.
This smacks of an agenda and I’d like to know how they arrived at their position and if Jared Taylor’s Jewish pal, Robert Weissberg, is lurking somewhere in the background urging them on?
At the last AmRen MacDonald was present to hear Weissberg give a speech attacking white-nationalism wherein he gave his view that such extremism has no chance of receiving vital funding….”Prof. Weissberg also noted that there is no economic advantage to promoting white racial consciousness, and that most people do not act without financial incentives”
I’m sure Weissberg would recommend to MacDonald et al that the Holocaust question be placed in the same ‘vile’ category as white nationalism and thus rejected.
Here’s a summary of Weissbergs address:
”The first speaker Saturday morning was the always stimulating Robert Weissberg, Emeritus professor of University of Illinois at Champaign, who proposed “A Politically Viable Alternative to White Nationalism.” He argued that any movement that is explicitly based on white racial identity is “dead on arrival,” and must be repackaged in order to win successful recognition.
The reality—that racial nationalism “is intuitive and written in our genes” and that even children are conscious of race—is a huge advantage for those who want to build a racial movement, but any white movement today that takes an explicitly racial stand will fail: “We are considered just above child molesters.”
Prof. Weissberg also noted that there is no economic advantage to promoting white racial consciousness, and that most people do not act without financial incentives”
Source: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/03/a-winning-mindset-for-effective-advocacy/
If there’s an agenda, it’s probably more to steer clear of problems than to coordinate their political/philosophical positions. ‘For Fear of the Jews’ remains the descriptive term.
Jared Taylor’s featuring Jews as speakers, and others who attend tolerating it, is another matter. Weissberg’s speech was abominable, but he interspersed those offending words in amongst many others so that too many listeners found no fault in them. It’s kind of like what Greg Johnson does.
Henry,
Prof. MacDonald’s disinterest in paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery predates my helping him with some technical matters or his publication of Dr. Johnson’s essay.
I used to be concerned about finding ways to convince people who are obsessed about the “Holocaust” to recognize that it’s rapidly waning in influence and fading into historical irrelevance. Then it dawned on me: I don’t have to change anybody’s mind. I just have to wait a couple more decades and everybody who thinks the “Holocaust” is some big important issue to waste a bunch of time and money on will no longer be side-tracking every attempt to focus on core advocacy issues.
Oh, and a big congrats on your successful campaign against Voice of Reason. I’m certainly relieved that it will no longer be transmitting any discourse which fails to meet the demanding standards of this monomaniacal echo chamber.
Matt, don’t you think you should know where Johnson got his Ph.D, and in what, before calling him Doctor? Or do you just take his word for it? I don’t doubt that he has one, they’re not that hard to get. I just want to know the institution.
You addressed this comment to Henry, so I guess it’s Henry you’re referring to? And we have to give you credit too, as the person who ditched more shows that he started than anyone else at VoR … by far. So congrats to you, Matt.
Carolyn,
No, I don’t. I called him Dr. before it was confirmed for me, because I invest more time and energy in criticizing our enemies than I do our allies. In fact, I even refrain from making spurious accusations against our enemies…much less our allies.
The first part was to Henry. The following was to the network.
I went on a scheduled and unavoidable hiatus for a major life event, and the Friday Show was designed from the beginning to have a flexible and rotating selection of hosts.
But you do have a point there. I may have faltered in my support. There’s more I could have done. But whatever I’ve done wrong, it’s short of active and malicious sabotage of too many dedicated advocates to list.
Matt – Truly you don’t know what you’re talking about. A Ph.D. is tied to the institution that grants it. There is no such thing as a generic Ph.D. Every Ph.D. holder knows this and declares the university and department his came from. Except for our little Greggy Johnson who wants to keep his a secret. Little Greggy would have liked to have kept his name a secret too, but being editor of TOQ was too much to pass by, so he consented to using his real name … maybe. Matt, you ought to be more discriminating. And let me inform readers that I don’t know you, I’ve never met you or spoken to you, I’ve only listened to you on VoR programs.
It wasn’t just this latest Friday Show that you dropped out of. You previously started two shows of your own that didn’t last long, and you were joining Mike Conner on another one, if I recall, but you quickly disappeared from that one too. Carolyn Yeager, on the other hand, was nothing but an asset to Voice of Reason from her first show. She never failed to have a NEW show; never ran re-runs. CY behaved professionally at all times, something I can’t say about Mike Conner, although he mostly did. I haven’t told the story of Mike Conner yet, and I don’t intend to unless I am provoked enough. So watch out. What Mike was saying about me after my “Homosexual Menace” program (which of course came to my attention) was full of falsehoods and self-serving statements. I have it on file. The problems that VoR is having, and has had, are not anything that I am responsible for. I saw it coming, and that’s why I left.
I have not been “malicious” and have not carried out any “sabotage.” At The White Network, I was finally free from “fellow hosts’ sensitivities” and could tackle whatever subjects I wanted. None of my shows on tWn were planned in advance; none of it had I even thought about earlier. But I’m proud of the work that I’ve done. A lot of my criticism of people you favor, like Jared Taylor, James Edwards, Paul Gottfried, was done on programs when I was still at VoR. Mike Conner didn’t have any problem with those types of shows until I was no longer on his network. Strange!
So take your “dedicated advocates” talk somewhere else; don’t bother me with it. However, since you’re white, you’re welcome to comment here.
Carolyn,
Greg has taken steps to partition parts of his life off to protect himself from exactly this sort of malicious digging and accusing you’re doing. He most likely assumed the heat we be primarily coming from the other side, but you live and learn.
I had one single show, Radio Free Indiana, which I cancelled after a few months. He then encouraged me to join him as a co-host on The Friday Show, a gig which we planned from the beginning to have a flexible hosting schedule that could work around my planned hiatus. I don’t know where all these other shows are coming from, probably the same fevered imagination most of your other accusations come from, I suppose.
“Weissberg’s speech was abominable”
That is an understatement.
That was the final nail in the coffin for me and this A3P/Amren crowd. Before that, I made excuses for them that they were some kind of gateway nationalism. No more!
They are either fools are straight out traitors to sit through that speech!
Thomas Dalton is wrong about the genocide of White nations. Technically, what is being done to us is really genocide. And Greg Johnson is right to point out that the Jews know what they are doing to us better than anyone else does. Not because they have been genocided themselves, but because they always have that issue on their mind, and their policies revolve around it. For example, they have created Israel to ensure their survival as a race, so they won’t disappear by miscegenation with White people.
My problem with VoR these days is that they are nothing but a vehicle for the Amren/A3P crowd to preach moderation to nationalists.
Furthermore, they seem to care more about Ron Paul then they do our cause. Kelso for example spends a good 75% of his time yapping about the wonders of Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts (and other Patriotards) and kissing the ass of the movement hacks such as Jared Taylor and of course promoting the A3P to send money as if these men are providing anything in the way of leadership whatsoever.
Im tired of it.
Matt said:
.
Is that just your own opinion or is it one that Kevin MacDonald also supports?
If he does consider revisionism to be ”paranoid pseudo-historical buffoonery” then that’s very interesting as this view reflects the mainstream opinion of MacDonald’s own work on the Jewish question. I believe he’s struggled to have his work accepted for peer review, which must be very frustrating. In fact his work has been univerally condemmed by his peers. So perhaps this is one of those cases where the abused (MacDonald) in turn, became the abuser of others.
Matt,
I’d like your opinion on an email sent by Robert Weissberg in 2007.
Prof. Weissberg hasn’t denied sending this email so there’s no paranoia involved in raising this issue, and one would hope that after seeing its content, you might also feel some anxiety as to Weissberg’s intentions re. AmRn, and white nationalism in general: especially given all that you’ve gained from Prof. MacDonald’s own warnings as to the dangers posed by Jewish group strategy.
Here it is:
An ‘email’ from Robert Weissberg to the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) on the matter of AmRen and “strategy”
Source: http://jewishdefense.org/RobertWeissberg/
Robert Weissberg has not denied sending this email and so from this should be no doubt about the purpose of the Jews at AmRen. Indeed, this raises important questions about Jared Taylor that can’t be ignored and should be answered.
Don’t you agree?
The whole basis of the rumor is that Zundel’s maternal grandfather was named Isidor Mayer. That may sound jewy to somebody in North America but Mayer is a perfectly normal German name and Isidor is an Ancient Greek name. This is no basis for claiming that Zundel’s grandfather was a Jew.
1. While what is happening to the White race in the United States can be argued as fitting the United Nations’ definition of genocide, that is not what most people think the word means. For most people genocide means stacks of dead bodies. If you use the UN’s definition you will look like what Greg Johnson called me, a flim-flam artist. Also, you will look weak and foolish, because the whole gist of such an argument is to try to persuade anti-racists to cut White people some slack.
2. Although the claim of ensuring the survival of the Jewish people has been made, the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine is primarily about symbolism. Without the symbolism, Madagascar would be obviously a much better location for a secure Jewish state. The Book of Isaiah says that the Jews will rule their enemies that had tried to destroy them (in their minds, the whole world) from Jerusalem.
Henry,
I’m speculating.
Yes. According to mainstream opinion, MacDonald’s work is quackery; as is Jared Taylor’s, for that matter. Just because we’ve landed in their quackery bucket doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as quackery or that other things which have been popularly dismissed as quackery are something other than quackery.
The line must be drawn somewhere, after all. Witness this network’s show on “delusional thinking”. It’s a show in which stuff which is incorrect is dismissed by somebody who’s herself been dismissed by others as incorrect.
To clarify, we’re all “Holocaust Deniers” relative to the mainstream opinion. My position, which is similar to Greg’s, doesn’t win me any relief from the charge that I’m a “Holocaust Denier”. I don’t hold my opinion as an “angle” or due to concern about appearing too “radical” or “delusional”. I hold it because I’ve researched the matter to a limited extent and found that to be the case.
I’ll never research it to the satisfaction of those who perceive it to be some sort of Excalibur sword in a quest to assuage White Guilt. As I suggested earlier, there’s a generational factor at play which will work itself out over time. The Holocaust Card has been thoroughly maxed out, especially with younger audiences who question its relevance to contemporary issues. Younger mainstream and nationalist audiences alike see it as a smaller and smaller episode in the historical background.
Those who wish to research it are welcome to do so, and I support (with more than just my words) the right of revisionists to study and speak freely about these matters. But I don’t think it belongs at the forefront of white advocacy efforts and I don’t think it’s wise to invest time and energy in it with the hope of reaping benefits for our people.
Respectfully disagreeing (and he’s consistently been more respectful than I’m being at the moment) is not “abuse”.
I can’t confirm the authenticity, but it seems legitimate. It’s certainly cogent with the rest of what we’ve seen from Weissberg. I’m not quite sure what the revelation is. Jared always has been and likely always will be friendly with a small but vocal cabal of Amreni Jews. Jared was inviting Jews to speak at his conference while I was still in elementary school.
I disagree with Jared about Jews being “White”. I do not believe what they bring to the table (which is admittedly in actuality and in theory impressive) is worth either the potential for misdirection or the exception to a coherent [White = European] definition of Whiteness.
Weissberg’s letter wasn’t a confession that Jared is actually a double agent serving the Jews, but rather that Jared and what he is doing is good for the Jews. I would hope that Amreni Jews see Jared Taylor’s brand of White Advocacy as “good for the Jews”. Weissberg, Jared, myself, you, and everybody else here agree that AmRen is good for the Jews. The JDL and the mainstream Jewish community disagree.
I fail to see the scandal or revelation here.
My own position on Amreni Jews is to to be (genuinely) friendly with those who wish to be friendly with us, and consider Jews allies to the extent that they’re allied with us…at arm’s length. From representatives of one sovereign nation to another. In accordance with consistent ethnic nationalist principles. No close “inner circle” networking. No plotting. No intermarriage or anything like that. A Jew can never be a comrade because he integrally lacks a shared identity with us.
Ulfric,
Go back and listen to the multiple shows in which Mike Conner, Greg Johnson, and I positively skewered Ron Paul. VoR was eager to support just about any pro-White vehicle. CofCC is the only other major show in town aside from A3P for formal organizing and they already have The Political Cesspool, so VoR ended up featuring a disproportionate amount of A3P stuff…not through any bias or favor on VoR’s part.
I reject the framing of the Holocaust Debate as one between mainstreamers and radicals. The Holocaust Thing is a distraction, not an overindulgence. It’s a scholarly historical issue disguising itself as a cardinal contemporary political consideration. I would note this very article I’m commenting on as evidence in my case, with the Holocaust Denier blowing off Greg Johnson’s concerns about our impending genocide as absurd.
Step back for a moment and see that not only is Dr. Johnson passionately and consistently opposed to the Jews, but that he is also a more reliable and passionate advocate for our people than Prof. Dalton. You’re allowing this one side issue–whether or not the Holocaust is of pivotal importance–distract you from what we should all agree is the goal: reversing White dispossession. In that matter, Johnson is clearly more radical than Dalton.
What is “malicious digging and accusing” about expecting a man who calls himself a Ph.D. and allows people to address him as “Doctor” to name the institution of higher learning that is indissolubly associated with his Ph.D? What is “Doctor” Johnson afraid that people will find out? Obviously, he doesn’t want us on his side to know much about him. I believe I know what he is hiding – and you know too and are happy to cover it up – but perhaps there is even more to hide than that.
I repeat what I said on my last radio show, sent to me by correspondent: The whole point of a doctorate is that it is a qualification in a particular discipline, or pseudo-discipline, from a particular institution. Apart from Doctor Feelgood, if a person does not say what their supposed doctorate is in and where it was granted/earned, then they cannot be referred to as “Doctor”.
You, Matt Parrott, pick and choose what you judge important by the criterion of your own advancement in the WN world you desire to be part of. You behave like a groupie, and that is why few people, apart from those you serve, respect you. Other words would be toady or water-carrier.
You cancelled and then came back again. Here is your schedule of shows: Oct. 14 – Nov. 24, 2010. Then a break. Picking up again on Jan 19, 2011, you did four programs (Jan. 26, Feb. 9, March 9). Then your RFI show ended. When VoR allowed your weekly show to come back two months later, it was so you could promote “Dr.” Greg Johnson’s new book, Confessions …. Here is the blurb for the program:
This last version of RFI lasted from June 3 to June 24, (basically a new attempt for the program) and then you were done – used up. You filled up your last two shows by reading from your manifesto, Hoosier Nation-The Book.
Among those you interviewed during your spotty performance as a radio host were: Dr. David Yeagley, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, John Derbyshire, Jared Taylor, “Dr.” Greg Johnson, Andy Nowicki (one of Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents authors).
You made two appearances as “co-host” on “This Week in Disorganized America” on Nov. 19 and Dec. 3, 2010. The impression I had was that you would be an ongoing part of that program. This was right before Mishko quit in disgust. Believe me, I know all about that.
After this, you showed up again (Poor Mike Conner keeps making the same mistakes again and again) as permanent co-host of the new Friday Show, beginning on Dec. 30, 2011 – one year after your last appearance on VoR. The announcement read: “The main co-hosts will be Mike Conner and Matt Parrott. There may well be other co-hosts, as well as special guests.” I volunteered at the time, and one later time, to be a “guest co-host” on the Friday Show, and was told “Oh, good” but was never asked. Although Robert Stark and Paul Fromm were. Explain that from a point of view of wanting to be successful, will you? It reveals a desire to promote certain VoR personalities over others.
You managed to appear on 20 shows this time before you abandoned ship. Among the guests were the same line-up as you interviewed in the past. You were pretty good in the first few shows, but then you became more and more indifferent.
Now that I’ve explained “all these other shows” you can see it’s not my “fevered imagination” at all, it is your typical downplaying or suppression of what you don’t want brought up. I don’t make anything up, and when I am wrong, I make a point of correcting myself. That’s why criticisms from you and your camp are all generalities and name-calling. You, like Greg and like Mike Conner, have never quoted a single word from me. There’s a reason – if you did, you would expose the truth I have not yet revealed about yourselves and Voice of Reason!
(edited this last sentence at 1:30 p.m.)
There is one section of The Leuchter Report that is problematic, the section that talks about concentrations of HCN gas needed for delousing vs. killing people. Leuchter was no expert on killing insects, and his figures for appropriate gas-concentration in an execution gas-chamber are based on the intention of causing a rapid and humane death, an intention which Holocaustians are not willing to attribute to the evil Germans.
Judge Ron Thomas therefore would not let Leuchter testify about gas-concentrations, but since he had been constructing gas-chambers for a living he was qualified as an expert on the necessary structural characteristics of gas-chambers, wherein the Auschwitz Kremas are conspicuously deficient. If somebody says that Leuchter is no expert you can respond that he was qualified as an expert by a Canadian court.
I am disappointed that Matt Parrott is back to calling revisionism “buffoonery.” I thought he had learned better.
It amazes me that any reasonably informed person could say that the Holohoax is irrelevant when the famous Whitaker Mantra is explicitly about trying to navigate around that propaganda and its effects.
Some of us prefer simply to cut the Gordian Knot.
I see the interest in Greg Johnson’s past or personal life as an unproductive distraction. The problem with Johnson is with what we can see for ourselves, what he says openly.
Matt Parrott – If you persist in using innuendo and implication in referring to that which you don’t want to mention, your comments will not longer be allowed. You have the privilege of posting here, so don’t be an ass.
You are hereby required to come up with what this “somebody” has been incorrect on or about, and by whom, or goodbye Matt Parrott.
Maybe that is the only problem you are interested in, Hadding. But I see other problems. If it wasn’t a problem, it wouldn’t be hidden. This is a book publisher and writer who wants to be taken seriously.
Hadding,
To be clear, I’m calling attempts to prop it up as a central issue buffoonery and I’m calling attempts to use it as a litmus test issue among advocates buffoonery. What’s going on here…comrades allies as enemies for failing to toe a sufficiently hard line on revisionism…is buffoonery, is it not?
As for the Mantra, it engages then sets aside the very notion of “White Guilt” as illegitimate…a far more concise and effective strategy than attempting to prove that Whites are historically innocent of every doing anything wrong. In fact, it even implicitly accepts that Nazis killed six million Jews…something which I publicly disagree with.
Carolyn,
You read too much into what I was saying. My point was that there’s somebody to the left of you saying you’re too extreme and somebody to the right of you saying you’re too moderate.
Don’t bother calling security, I’ll show myself out.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Hadding. Much appreciated 🙂
As I knew, Parrott cannot come up with what I was supposedly incorrect about or who said it! Instead of admitting it, he says (as his Dr Johnson always does) that I read something into his words that was not there! He reveals his duplicity right there, as all can read what he said.
He can’t stand behind his words. He’s a double-talker. And since he knows he came here only to engage in double-talk and has nothing else to offer, he says:
Good.
I can see the attempted dig at the back-end of that jibe but I don’t understand how it ties in with the part at the front, unless Matt was being cryptic, in which case, its meaning is beyond me.
Thomas Dalton: “Of course, there will be some who will say “500,000 Jewish deaths is still a Holocaust.” Others will say, “Even one death is a tragedy.” And on a personal level, it is.”
One death wouldn’t be enough to illustrate the perversion of the non-Jews. The holocaust story is about the evilness of the Germans and of any White man who says his grand-parents were not evil degenerates. The question isn’t how much the Jews suffered. If Israel was destroyed by a tsunami or an earthquake, we wouldn’t hear so much about it, because it could not be used as a weapon against White people.
According to the Jews, the starvation of the Ukrainians, the incineration of German civil populations by the allied aviation, and the 50 million casualties of WWII do not matter, as it was all done in good sport. By contrast, the Jews, who say they can read through the White man’s mind, have determined that the Germans had nasty motivations. Their idea was to kill all the Jews, and for no reason at all.
(At least, that is what the media say. Maybe some Jewish “historians” have revised their accusations and now say that the gassing of 6 million Jews was a secret operation that not every German knew about. But the narrative has not been revised in the media, the schoolbooks, the history colleges, and the European courts of justice. The intellectual terrorism goes on.)
Henry – He made it up. He speaks for other people, but when you ask who they are, he won’t name them because he’s making it up. But the show was about incorrect versions of Hitler’s end in the Berlin Bunker; that’s what he’s referring to.
According to lots of links obtained via Google, GJ got his PhD in Philosophy from Catholic University (Washington D.C.). He has already stated in an interview that he got a PhD in Philosophy. Here’s something he likely wrote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18002484/From-Swedenborgs-Spiritual-World-to-Kants-Kingdom-of-Ends-Gregory-R-Johnson-ARIES-91-2009-8399
Carolyn, you don’t need to waste your time telling me that.
Regardless of the thinking behind his comment, it was poorly composed, and fell wide of the intended mark.
A bit like his monumental fuck-up (sorry, but sometimes it’s merited) claiming the ‘Holocaust’ is fast-disappearing into the mist of time and space!
A pretend Christian who lies is bad enough. But one such as Matt Parrott, who lies to himself when broadcasting in public, is beyond even Christ’s merciful redemption.
May his God have mercy upon his soul.
Hadding,
It fits what’s happening in Europe even better.
This comes closer to fitting what’s happening to Whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
It seems to me that more awareness is required. More Whites will come to understand that conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part are being deliberately inflicted. The only question is whether enough will understand in time to stop it.
My people are being destroyed. I don’t care what names I’m called or what I look like for resisting.
My arguments are aimed at Whites, not anti-Whites. Nobody is going to save us but ourselves.
My people are being destroyed. I don’t care what names I’m called or what I look like for resisting.
Me either.
Tan makes me feel so proud to be around this site.
I am glad he is on our side.
It’s not failure to take a sufficiently hard line on revisionism that’s the irritant here.
Johnson wrote an essay conspicuous for doubletalk and fuzzy logic, of which the key insight seems to be that White Nationalists could avoid a lot of trouble by not challenging some major elements of Jewish propaganda. No kidding! Why didn’t William Pierce ever think of that?
If Johnson didn’t want to take a stand on revisionism — about which he confesses being not well informed — all he had to do was not write about it.
So Matt, tell me again please, what it is that you call buffoonery?
Are we so far gone that the fact that our race is under attack only matters to our people if they can be assured that it meets some criterion established by the United Nations?
The use of the UN’s definition of genocide is what Bowden called a reverse semiotic. It is not a way to reach our people but rather a way to plead with people that are fundamentally hostile.
It would be interesting to find out what portion of the White population cares in any way about what the UN says. The healthier elements probably care very little. In any case what the UN says only counts when governments want it to count. The State of Israel ignores UN resolutions all the time.
Thanks, WhiteLurker. I have found this: http://www.soulworks.net/writings/paradigms/site_023.html
It reveals that in July-August 1997, GJ had “recently completed his Ph.D. dissertation.
Philosophy and the Paranormal:
Greg Johnson wants to popularize Plato’s art
by Cliff Bostock
(Originally published in the “Paradigms” column of Creative Loafing, Atlanta, Jul. 26, Aug. 2, 1997)
Greg Johnson is trying to create a novel career for himself as a “philosophical consultant.” Having recently completed his Ph.D. dissertation for Catholic University in Washington, Johnson lives in Atlanta where he teaches part time at Morehouse [an all-black college -cy] and through his own organization called “The Invisible College.”
Also see here: http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Johnson,%20Gregory%20R/aid/2510190 and here: http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Sherover%2C%20Charles%20M/aid/4582736#
More Sherover: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20753143?uid=3739920&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101135927121
And: http://www.sunypress.edu/p-844-time-freedom-and-the-common-goo.aspx
And: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t47r261656172842/
And especially: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/29/us/philosophical-rift-a-tale-of-two-approaches.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.amazon.com/Are-We-In-Time-Temporality/dp/0810119455/ref=la_B001KHXL62_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1345133719&sr=1-4 This appears to be a collection of Sherover’s work put together by Johnson as editor. It came out in 2003. Sherover died in 2005 at 83 years. Re to that, his obit: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-10-30/news/0510300042_1_american-philosophical-society-kant-time-study (reports that Sherover never married, had no children. He was a visiting professor at Emory University in Atlanta in the 1990’s … at the time Johnson was teaching at Morehouse [All-Black Men’s] College.)
Morehouse College is located 3 miles from Downtown Atlanta. From it’s mission statement:
http://www.amazon.com/From-Kant-Royce-Heidegger-Philosophy/dp/0813213444/ref=la_B001KHXL62_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345133719&sr=1-3 Also 2003.
Catholic University of America, Wash. D.C. – http://www.cua.edu/
Current faculty: http://philosophy.cua.edu/faculty.cfm
Catholic Identity: http://www.cua.edu/catholic-identity/
Are we so far gone that we shouldn’t fight in any way we can? Who are we fighting for? The handful of Whites who can figure things out for themselves without any help?
The UN provides one prominent legal codification of the hostile elite’s moralizing. That moralizing, and the pervasive, empirically anti-White nature of it, are key, not the UN’s imprimatur. As you note, many people aren’t aware (or don’t care) that the UN defines genocide as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. But many have heard about genocide and have internalized that it is bad.
The problem for Whites is that Whites have been conditioned to recognize and oppose the genocide of other peoples. Most Whites fail to identify their own people as needing defense. To the extent they even identify with their own people they have been conditioned to see it as a negative, associated with the genocide of other peoples.
The first step in our defense is to understand that, objectively, the moralizing and legalizing about genocide can apply just as well to ourselves, that Whites can and must defend our own interests. The next step is to realize that the genocide conditioning was never intended to protect Whites. Whites are the bad guys. The conditioning is anti-White, deliberately inflicted, part of how we are being destroyed.
I have taken both steps. I look back and see others as one step behind, not far gone. Our enemy has created and is using a terrible ideological weapon against us. Raising awareness of this blunts the harm and helps turn their investment toward our own defense.
About the concept of genocide:
The etymology of the word means killing a nation. It doesn’t mean killing members of that nation. There is a useful quote of Raphael Lemkin who coined the word:
It sounds a little strange because it doesn’t sound at all like a description of Hitler’s policy towards the Jews. It looks more like the description of a policy of forceful assimilation of a small nation by a bigger nation. I guess a number of European countries have tried to do that to the Jews. In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, some Jews like Lemkin probably tried to present the Jewish nation as a minority comparable to the South Tyroleans, the Slovaks or the Sorbs, as if they were Europeans. The emphasis was on the right of a national minority to resist assimilation. I’m sure that the decision of the United Nations to give a definition of genocide had a lot to do with Jewish activism.
What is funny is that Lemkin’s and the United Nations’ definition is completely at odds with today’s Jewish strategy. It is no longer acceptable to compare the Jews with European minorities. The suffering of the Jews is unique. Comparing them to the Tyroleans would be an insult.
Today’s official Jewish narrative is that the Europeans tried to kill all the Jews, and for no reason at all. So, the meaning of the word “genocide” had to be revised. According to the new Jewish definition, genocide is the “systematic killing of a racial or cultural group”. It is a synonym of mass murder. It isn’t difficult to change the dictionary definition. The Jews own a number of publishing houses. Other publishing houses were simply asked to make the change too. At least, I guess it worked like that. It would be interesting to find a 1960 dictionary with a definition of the word genocide.
The United Nations definition can be useful. If I argue with people that the government wants to kill the White race, they will tell me that I’m out of my mind. If I mention the UN definition and some demographic predictions, I may be more convincing.
The observation that Kant derived ideas from Swedenborg is not original with Greggy. Nietzsche mentioned it in one of his books.
I find it amusing that a man with a doctorate in philosophy had to be lectured by me on the importance of defining terms (like “the Holocaust”) to be used in any discussion that is to have any hope of a clear outcome. As a philosopher Greg Johnson is a quack.
Only if you are talking to somebody that cares what the UN thinks.
From Kant and Royce to Heidegger: Essays in Modern Philosophy
by Charles M Sherover, Brenda L Moore, Gregory R Johnson (Selected by)
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=7577090&matches=6&cm_sp=works*listing*title
Who is Brenda L. Moore? http://library.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/archives/womens_work/bios/moore.htm
Also: http://sociology.buffalo.edu/faculty_staff/faculty/moore/
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Moore%2C%20Brenda%20L/aid/3458554
Building Bodies
by Brenda L. Moore
Building Bodies is an exciting collection of articles that strive toward constructing theoretical models in which power, bodies, discourse, and subjectivity interact in a space we can call the “built” body, a dynamic, politicized, and biological site. Contributors discuss the complex relationship between body building and masculinity, between the built body and the racialized body, representations of women body builders in print and in film, and homoeroticism in body building. Linked by their focus on the sport and practice of body building, the authors in this volume challenge both the way their various disciplines (media studies, literary criticism, gender studies, film and sociology) have gone about studying bodies, and existing assumptions about the complex relationship between power, subjectivity, society, and flesh. Body building – in practice, in representation, and in the cultural imagination – serves as an launching point because the sport and practice provide ready challenges to existing assumptions about the “built” body. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558843.Building_Bodies
I may be (though I doubt it) the only person interested in this, but I’m finding it very interesting.
Cliff Bostock’s article list (he’s the homosexual columnist who interviewed Greg Johnson): http://www.soulworks.net/writings/paradigms/paradigms.html
About gay culture: http://www.soulworks.net/writings/paradigms/site_074.html
Gregory Johnson, private consultant, offers classes: http://clatl.com/atlanta/beauty-and-sin/Content?oid=1225318
Cliff Bostock – ” Next week, I’ll conclude this series on new forms of psychological growth with an interview with philosopher Greg Johnson. The two of us will be engaging in a public dialog at Borders in Buckhead at 7 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 22.” http://www.pantheatre.com/archives/pages/writings_cliff.htm
No, I don’t think you are the only one Carolyn, lol.
This whole episode is proving to be an incredibly important ‘line in the sand’ for many I would think.
I find it fascinating, as along with what’s happening here, Alex Linder and Greg Johnson have quite the conversation going on over at VNN….
Thanks for speaking up, Mary. 🙂
I am following that thread over on VNN also.
I wrote this over at VNN:
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074&page=20
This story just in. This is the kind of activism we need. And people need to get their heads clear about this issue.
MOSCOW (AP) — Some Russian activists have sued Madonna for millions of dollars, claiming they were offended by her support for gay rights during a recent concert in St. Petersburg.
Anti-gay sentiment is strong in Russia. In St. Petersburg, a law passed in February makes it illegal to promote homosexuality to minors, and the author of that law has pointed to the presence of children as young as 12 at Madonna’s concert on Aug. 9.
Russian news agencies quote Alexander Pochuyev, a lawyer representing the nine activists, as saying the suit was filed Friday against Madonna, the organizer of her concert, and the hall where it was held, asking for damages totaling 333 million rubles, or nearly $10.5 million.
Responding to criticism that the plaintiffs were stuck in the Middle Ages, the lawyer said they were using civilized, modern methods to defend their rights. “No one is burning anyone at the stake or carrying out an Inquisition,” Pochuyev was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying. “Modern civilization requires tolerance and respect for different values.”
The complaint includes a video taken at the concert showing Madonna stomping on an Orthodox cross and asking fans to raise their hands to show the pink armbands in support of gays and lesbians that were distributed among the audience, the new agency reported.
Madonna also has angered conservative Russians with her support for Pussy Riot. Three members of the punk band were sentenced Friday to two years in prison for a protest inside Moscow’s main cathedral against Vladimir Putin and his cozy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. [what biased wording from the AP! These women were not engaging in “freedom of speech” but in desecration. I wonder what would happen if 3 members of a revisionist band went into the Auschwitz Memorial Museum in Poland and “protested” in the manner the Pussy-girls did in the cathedral?-cy]
Madonna spoke out in support of the group during her concert in St. Petersburg and two days earlier in Moscow. After the verdict was issued, Madonna called on “all those who love freedom to condemn this unjust punishment.”
Speaking of the “gay” lifestyle, this fellow gives us a real clear idea. He wants to move to Seattle but is afraid it won’t work out as he hopes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSklJMz_BY
Skip to: 7min 15sec to 8min 40sec, and then again 18:50 to the end. I have to admit I am repulsed by him because he is not a man, not a White man. He’s an aberrant male human being who in no way inspires respect, but, at best, sympathy. Can we afford to allow him to be a model for our males … to exhibit himself in public as perfectly normal and “okay?” I don’t think so.
It’s not good enough to just be White. Within the White community, we have to have other standards too.