In the third program of An Hour by the Window, August discusses some aspects of the field of revisionism. He holds that revisionism’s principal antagonists can be divided into roughly two camps: Those that fall within the mainstream academic establishment and those that emerge within our own movement. He cites two examples, respectively, of each. Michael Shermer, Holocaust historian, embodies the former. Author Greg Johnson, a White nationalist, embodies the latter. Both fundamentally oppose Holocaust revisionism, but do so from very different points of view. The pro-establishment view rejects revisionism as pseudoscience, and the White nationalist rejection of revisionism rejects the revisionist enterprise as irrelevant to our cause.
In the course of this program, August brings up other issues:
- Michael Shermer’s essay, The New Revisionism, as an example of how those who critique revisionism have political motives of their own.
- Comparisons made by anti-revisionists between revisionism and creationism, which Shermer has himself done numerous times.
- The reduction of some criticisms of revisionism to a “fringe group”.
- The pseudoscientific underpinnings of some anti-revionists, like Shermer, and the anti-scientific basis of their race-denial.
- Discussion of Greg Johnson’s essay at The Occidental Observer entitled “Dealing with the Holocaust”, and his “Holocaust enough” claim.
- Reference to recent talks and writings, such as Carolyn Yeager’s writings and in Thomas Dalton’s Nationalism and the Holocaust: A Reply to Johnson.
Image: Ernst Zündel leaving prison in 1985.
Email: worldswomb AT gmail DOT com
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I enjoyed the high calibre of this show and look forward to hearing more from August Hurst. I’d like him to use his perspicacity to discuss the implications for revisionists of a couple of books about the Holocaust that could use a close examination. These are THE MEMORY OF JUDGEMENT: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust by Lawrence Douglas and THE VISIBILITY of the HOLOCAUST: Franz Neumann and the Nuremberg Trials by Michael Salter.
Revisionists haven’t really addressed the role of the Allied intelligence services in manufacturing the Holocaust myth. They’ve done groundbreaking forensic science and primary document research, but only the new media maestro known as “denierbud” has really begun to examine these events and purported events as a rogue psychological warfare operation that’s obviously gotten out of control.
August said:
“This is where Johnson errs. Because you cannot pretend that revisionism is irrelevant because the reality of the power of our enemy is everyday present, and their myths, their impulse to produce empathy for their suffering is also ever present. We have to find our own paths away from these sorts of narratives which revisionism has already shown us to be false.
Clinging to them because of a continued presence of a powerful enemy is not an escape, it’s an imprisonment.”
Very well said, especially that last sentence. Accepting jewish lies for convenience sake is indeed not an escape, it’s just blood in the water for jewish sharks. Let alone an affront to historical truth.
I think Johnson acts all macho where it doesn’t matter and all pussy where it does.
As for Shermer, I used to like him and often read his Skeptic magazine in years gone by. But his ‘converging lines of evidence’ spiel on the ‘Holocaust’ is just that. As August points out ‘ad hom’ is a favored tactic of Shermer.
Shermer has an agenda that tries to hide behind his false ‘skeptic/scientific’ camouflage.
August, thank you once again for your podcasts. You have obviously done a lot of research and its quality is very apparent.
BTW, your ‘mood’ music grows on me!
Thanks, who+dares+wings. I will have to check those references.
Thanks, katana.
I’m glad you enjoy the musical selections.
I’m also glad you appreciate that particular quote.
Shermer’s skepticism is what I call “kosher skepticism”. There was a chapter of his society at my university, and they spent a great deal of time debunking UFO claims, creationism and the like, but never exhibited much skepticism in regard to the fundamental claims by which our society operates. They would never turn that razor’s edge against the pseudoscience of race-denial and egalitarianism.
Thanks for listening. I’m constantly trying to improve them. I hope they will get progressively better over time.
All three of these shows have gone into my ‘permanent’ file. I will be going back to them often. Thanks.
About Johnson’s article; what I thought it expressed is a kind of dispair, and his conclusions and thoughts about the value of revisionism are a kind of outgrowth of this despair. This seems unfortunate but natural, given that the holocaust promotion and revisionist sides are so unequal in terms of resources. A dynamic has been set up in which revisionism feeds into the holocaust onslaught as a pretext for more education, militancy and hysteria. Yet at the same the publicity over revisionism has created a kind of unbroken chain of researchers who have been willing to sacrifice their careers and face the whirlwind of slander and jail sentences. Faurisson, Zundel, Leuchter, Rudolf, etc…The result of this has been an irrefutable body of work, but one known by relatively few. Anyone touching it publicly will be demonized and will appear crazy to the masses. Johnson says it hasn’t been worth it while we say that it has. It is hard to really know at this point who is right from a strategic point of view.
The question remains for those who want to continue this fight; how do revisionists damage the holocaust mythos without being hit themselves, and without feeding it?
kilroy,
Thank you for that. I plan on revising my first and likely second program for clarity. In my first I was just beginning to experiment with the software that I use, and that’s partly reflected in the unbearably low volume others have noted. I’m also concerned to edit out the pops and other obnoxious sounds that occur here and there. I’m glad to know, though, that you will be saving my recordings and referring back to them. If and when I should revise my first two shows, I will post a noticed, and I would encourage you to replace the original file with any new one. Anyway, thank you.
I see your point about Johnson, but I have little or no regard for Johnson, myself. To a degree, however, I can agree with your claim. Holocaust revisionism consistently encounters opposition and it is routinely shot down, marginalized as pseudoscience or fringe, and thus far, as Johnson himself has argued, in spite of its concrete accomplishments, appears to have had no decisive impact on Jewish power structure. But, to me, this is the result of a consistent campaign of defamation and unbridled Jewish influence in media and in education, and not the failure of revisionists.
It took some time for natural scientists to reject a geocentric view of cosmology, in favor of the correct heliocentric view we now possess. But it was the persistence of determined natural scientists that eventually overturned the old system of thought.
Whatever are the tragedies underlying Johnson’s own sentiments, we need to bear in mind that the strenuous efforts of people like Ernst Zündel, who have toiled very hard for the truth. Their efforts, which are to be lauded as much for the truth they contain as for the sincerity of their efforts, would be in vain if we were to just simply concede that which revisionists have succeeded in refuting: That there was a Holocaust. It is capitulation to Jewish pressure. There were several groups that suffered in World War II. European Jews were not the only people to have been interned and deported. Though Irving makes reference, in the preface to his “Hitler’s War”, to a “Jewish tragedy”, and Johnson thinks that any amount of Jewish deaths is “Holocaust enough”, are we then to infer that there is a “Gypsy tragedy”? A “Homosexual tragedy”? Why no moral agony on the part of Johnson about the death, in the millions, of Ukrainians during the Great Famine, which Soviet Jews helped to eventuate? It is only the particularity of Jewish power and strength and their influence in our society that compels any of us, Johnson, Weber or Irving included, to pretend that there was something so exceptional about Jewish suffering that it warrants a distinct name of its own and our ascription to it as an event unique and set apart.
I don’t believe it’s simply that Johnson feels revisionism has encountered hopeless odds.
Johnson is directly pandering to Jews and to other non-White groups. His New Right decries the “imperialism most foul” of past European colonialism (though without it, Johnson and other European Americans would not even exist) and German eastern foreign policy. A pillar of the so-called American New Right is a rejection of “colonialism” and “imperialism”, both of which produced the America within which the contemporary context of our own racial decline becomes an issue to us. Johnson claims that German actions in Poland were of the species of “imperialism most foul”. I simply do not like his mantra about German guilt in particular and White guilt in general.
That’s what his position really comes to, of course. If we have engaged in “imperialism most foul”, then the implication is that we have done something wrong in the past. It’s an attempt to reassure Jews and other non-Whites that we won’t hurt them again.
Ironically, Johnson says revisionism fails to get to the root of the problem, which is, as he says, “psychological” and “moral”. But in simply granting the uniqueness of Jewish suffering and moralizing about it doesn’t strike at that root problem, either. Striking at the heart of the psychological and moral issue involves dealing a blow to our spiritual dependency on Jewry. We need to psychologically and morally segregate ourselves from their influence, not refashion the tropes of Jews in ways that make clinging to them inevitable because we cannot escape from them. Johnson’s claim perpetually anchors us to a view of the past, and to subject “the Holocaust” to a semantic razor’s edge is, to him, “morally obtuse quibbling”.
I wasn’t aware that Jews should even enter our moral landscape.
This is a viscous biological-racial type that has struggled incessantly to destroy us. Not only do they fail to enter into my moral calculations, it is not at all clear to me why I should, at the end of the day, relent and then subscribe to a modified form of their myths. Katana posted my last remark at the end of the program, and I meant every word. We need to escape these narratives, and not solely for political reasons, but for epistemological ones. They are false. Our enemies are wrong. They have a narrative that is the principal basis of their identity, and striking at the very foundations of the existential basis of our enemy’s view of itself is the greatest weapon we can wield in our war against them. We have fact on our side; relenting, and therefore obliging our enemies a false narrative that they use to define themselves, not only errs factually and historically. It errs existentially, as well, because it conveys to our enemies that the primordial basis of their own identity is valid and that their conception of us, as a race that is guilty of “imperialism most foul” and that to question their narrative and that to demand that we precisely define the event that is sacrosanct is “morally obtuse quibbling”, is valid. If Johnson were serious about destroying the psychological and moral dependency we have on Jews, he would not be beckoning us to consider how horrible our race has been in the past, and he would not be decrying Germans after 1939 for “imperialism most foul”, while seemingly in the same breath granting the legitimacy and existence of a criminal, murderous, and imperialistic State of Israel.
It’s apparent to Johnson and the “universal nationalism” he touts that murderous Jews are entitled to soil in Palestine, but somehow a German drive against a murderous, anti-European Bolshevik regime, underlying Hitler’s foreign policy, was “imperialism most foul”.
We do not need Jews and we do not need their State.
I stand by my statement that Johnson is fundamentally confused. That’s probably more credit than he deserves. To pirate his language, I think he’s immoral. Any one of us that compels through his writings guilt about our race and its history while accepting a criminal, illegal and murderous Jewish state is immoral.
I appreciate your feedback, kilroy.
By what measurement does somebody claim that revisionism hasn’t accomplished anything when it is not something that people in positions of authority will discuss? Whatever influence that it has had will be untraceable.
I think it has a lot of influence. It seemed to me when Kofi Annan said at the Durban anti-racist conference in 2000 that the State of Israel should stop using the Holocaust as an excuse, the fact that the veracity of the Holocaust story had been challenged very likely lay somewhere in the background.
There is a dialectical process that has to be taken into account. When somebody takes the extreme position that there was no Holocaust, others are influenced by that, whether they wish to be influenced or not. Some of them will then say, “I am not a Holocaust denier but” it does seem to me that there has been some exaggeration, or alternately, “I am not a Holocaust-denier but” the Jewish exploitation of that story is over the top — which is what the Secretary-General of the United Nations effectively said.
Extreme positions, insofar as they carry any credibility at all, define the limits of discourse. Shocking and upsetting people is part of the dialectical process. This is why it’s wrong to try to cater to people’s sensitivities at the expense of facts and logic (the basis of credibility) as Greggy Johnson advocates, and as Mark Weber has been practicing for some years now.
Look at all the Google hits for “I am not a Holocaust-denier but”: 6620 for that exact combination of words in the English language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=+%E2%80%9CI+am+not+a+Holocaust+denier+but%E2%80%9D&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
These people are able to speak more freely because there are “Holocaust-deniers” that have taken the extreme position. That is a major part of the influence of revisionism.
I couldn’t agree more.
Kilroy said:
Johnson doesn’t have any “despair” about the value of revisionism – that’s nonsense. He doesn’t know anything about it, but only got a short tutorial from Mark Weber. He is repeating what Weber had already published, so his “views” are not something that grew out of his “despair.” They are calculated to advance his fund-raising.
Kilroy seems to be saying that if the resources are so unequal, that is a good reason to give up on revisionism.
Oh my! Let’s all listen to Johnson and run far away from it!
Kilroy, your ending question just doesn’t sound very serious. Maybe you could rephrase it now that you’ve had some feedback.
When I said despair I was probably thinking more of Weber who seems to have given up on revisionism after many years of trying. And when I say despair I mean it in the sense of a cardinal sin.
What I had meant is that Johnson’s essay brings up the question of tactics and strategy. I should have made it clear that I come down wholeheartedly on the revisionist side and I think the holocaust is crucial not only to WN but anyone who opposes jewish aims and methods, atrocity propaganda manipulation etc… I don’t want anyone to run from revisionism, I want it to become common knowledge.
I hope to write more on this shortly.Thanks for your responses.
August says: Striking at the heart of the psychological and moral issue involves dealing a blow to our spiritual dependency on Jewry. We need to psychologically and morally segregate ourselves from their influence, not refashion the tropes of Jews in ways that make clinging to them inevitable because we cannot escape from them. Johnson’s claim perpetually anchors us to a view of the past…
—
Amen, Brother August. “We do not need Jews,” you say, but they sure do need us hapless goyim, don’t they? What’s a parasite without its willing, if unwitting host? Neither do we need their imaginary Father, nor His imaginary Son, nor their Holy Spook, if we are to free ourselves from “spiritual dependency on Jewry” and the Judaic belief system.
I just learned a good and useful word from you: epistemological.
—
“epistemology- noun(Concise Encyclopedia)
“> Greek epistēmē knowledge, > epistanai to understand, know, > epi- + histanai to cause to stand
“Study of the origin, nature, and limits of human knowledge. Nearly every great philosopher has contributed to the epistemological literature. Some historically important issues in epistemology are: (1) whether knowledge of any kind is possible, and if so what kind; (2) whether some human knowledge is innate (i.e., present, in some sense, at birth) or whether instead all significant knowledge is acquired through experience (see empiricism; rationalism); and (5) whether the primary task of epistemology is to provide justifications for broad categories of knowledge claim or merely to describe what kinds of things are known and how that knowledge is acquired. Issues related to (1) arise in the consideration of skepticism, radical versions of which challenge the possibility of knowledge of matters of fact, knowledge of an external world, and knowledge of the existence and natures of other minds.”
—
Thank you. I’m reminded that it was almost exactly 20 years ago that my old friend Joe Pryce called me an empiricist — another good and useful word — and sent me to the dictionary to find out what I am.
You are an fine teacher.
Just to add my two cents:
August, love the shows! very meaty and concise. At first I was a bit saddened that the shows would be less than one hour but you really do a great job of using time effectively!
I recall Kairos referencing the ’80’s movie, “They Live”, which can be viewed online for free, and the experience of the main character putting on the Hoffman glasses and seeing the real world underneath the illusion. Revisionists do real history. When I first started really reading and learning about what really happened in the Third Reich and WWII and what really happened or what did not happen to the Jews between 1933-1945 it was like putting on the Hoffman glasses. As a young man educated since public schools adopted obligatory Holocaust education units and having been forced to see and learn garbage I can tell you we all believed the lies and it was force fed with an extra helping of emotionalism. This is why you get gentiles screaming and even tearing up over “holocaust denial”. To find out how terribly you have been lied to and how successful the liars have been in indoctrinating people into a new cult into believing an illusion, and in shaking down the Swiss and Germans and others for big bucks it is like a divine revelation. I say this because once I took it all in I no longer felt guilty for having enjoyed reading sections from Mein Kampf at my local library and having thought very highly of the SS and Third Reich when reading about them. Once you remove all the lies it is difficult for a white person, but I think particularly a person of German heritage, to feel anything but pride and appreciation for Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists and German and European peoples who sacrificed for the Reich and to protect and defend Europe from Judeo-Bolshevism. Of course this why people like Ernst Zundel and Friedrich Paul Berg, really love his site http://www.nazigassings.com , and all revisionists are so important. Further, I really am saddened and disappointed by Weber and Irving and the IHR. Shortly after coming to knowledge of the Truth of all this I saw clearly how they had retreated from Revisionism, Real Revisionism or what Carolyn calls Radical Revisionism, for personal ideological reasons, I think. I suppose it is the reaction to knowledge of the incredible truth Revisionists have uncovered and given so graciously and at much sacrifice to you. Some people with be grateful and see how special and good and great the Third Reich, Hitler, and National Socialism were and preach it whole-heartedly without fear: “as long as I know I’m right and I can prove what I know in my heart is true, gots bags and boxes full of documents, I’m gonna preach it!” is what I remember George Lincoln Rockwell saying. But others would rather retreat and give in and pussy-foot for the establishment for a number of reasons that always seem to be related, in one way or another, to cowardice.
Please keep up the good work sir!
Konrad,
Thanks for your response. About the length, yes, I had originally scheduled the show for a full hour, but reality played out differently and after some discussion with Carolyn and Tan, it is agreed that the show may run from a range of thirty minutes to a full hour. I will always strive to give you and my other listeners a quality show (thus, I hope there is noticeable improvement over time so far in quality, and Sasha, on my main page, has said that there is) but the show may run anywhere from thirty minutes to a full hour. I’m going to be making a note of this on this upcoming Wednesday’s program.
You know, I am glad that you invoked Kairos Theos. Some of our other listeners might not have have read or heard of him. He is a sold German nationalist and completely devoted to our worldview. Carolyn first interviewed him back in April 2012. She has interviewed him since.
I’m glad you bring him up because he is German, and the German people are central to our telescope on the past. They are central to the Jewish effort to deconstruct our race and our civilization, meaning that the presumption of their past sins is the principal basis of Jewish identity and the razor’s edge in their successful eradication of the racial bases of our domestic and immigration policies. Johnson claims in his article at TOO that Holocaust revisionism may be relevant to Germans, but not so much to people of European descent in general. That claim utilizes something factual but reaches an erroneous conclusion. If Jews in non-German contexts, say in America, can use their Holocaust myth to deconstruct our society, then European-Americans share with racially-sensitive Germans like Kairos a common cause. The falsified and mythologized history of the German people is the knife that the Jews use to dice the policies of the rest of us.
This is one aspect of Johnson’s thesis that I despise. Not only does it capitulate to Jewish aims, it also erects a moral barrier between European Americans and Germans. We have something at stake in correcting our view of the Holocaust. Johnson’s thesis is riddled with insinuations of German guilt. Though Johnson enjoys referencing Jonathan Bowden, it is ironic (though not only in the sense that Hadding means, in his reference to Johnson’s identification with Bowden’s “stepping over” comment even as he disregards Bowden’s admiration of fascism, which Johnson moronically lumps under “Old Right”), because Bowden also said that “the German people are cardinal” to our race and to Western civilization. Their cause is our cause, and not just as a matter of brotherly solidarity, because their enemies are our enemies. I, for one, see no “imperialism most foul” in past German foreign policy, as Johnson does, nor do I see a shred of legitimacy or even the most remote desirability, as Johnson does, in the existence of that criminal, murderous State of Israel. That’s just pandering to Jews.
Thanks, Will.
That’s a principal issue I have with Greg Johnson’s argument. He basically refurbishes the grounds for a claim of exceptional Jewish victimization, and rather than trying to dislodge ourselves from it, he keeps us firmly anchored to it by arguing that it is insensitive, “morally obtuse quibbling” to demand semantic precision. Our aim should be to soberly recognize the threat Jews and other groups pose to us and act decisively. Johnson’s approach is to ask forgiveness for past wrongs, concede that we’ve unjustifiably raped the Earth, and in essence ask for permission to exist.
I’m glad you enjoyed this show and I appreciate your feedback.
Will,
I need to clarify something. When I say, “spiritual dependency on Jews” I’m principally referring to the almost religious impulse we have to depend on them, as a moral and existential matter. Jewification of our societies and support for the State of Israel are what I’m referring to. I’m not at all referring to religion per se. I think that this dissension about theology and religion are complete distractions. I agree with Kairos, who said that “we should put race above religion”. We need to get our priorities in order. While Israel-first Christians are a severe hindrance to us, so are cowards like Richard Dawkins, who consume vast intellectual, scientific effort validating atheism but say little if anything about the assault on our race and the undeniably pseudoscientific underpinnings of the arguments advanced by our enemies.
Further, I really am saddened and disappointed by Weber and Irving and the IHR. Shortly after coming to knowledge of the Truth of all this I saw clearly how they had retreated from Revisionism, Real Revisionism or what Carolyn calls Radical Revisionism, for personal ideological reasons
In Irving’s case I think being put in prison may have altered his stated position.
In a way Irving is still sending a message, you could imagine him saying:
“I used to be a revisionist but a jail term has helped me to see things as they really are – I love Big brother”
One big problem with Johnson’s approach to the holocaust is that it won’t get him anything from the Jews. He will still be declared to be a racist and a hater as long as he does not bow down to the Jews in everything. Not challenging the holocaust did not save Derbyshire’s job at the National Review because there is a long and constantly expanding list of subjects that the Jews have declared off limits and anyone bringing them up is a hater.
So Johnson can ignore the holocaust but the Jews will still search his writings and declare him to be evil and a hater for anything he says about, race, ethnicity culture, immigration, economics, morals or any other subject that the Jews don’t like. He can say that he will support the Jews in their holocaust story, but that is just the first line drawn in the sand, there are plenty of others. And even a temporary lapse on any of these subjects will cause the Jews to attack as has been seen numerous times with news people, authors, actors, politicians, business leaders etc.
I have to say that Revisionism is very important to our cause and people. Here in Europe you go to jail if you say anything that is not allowed (and they can stretch that a long way, even a joke can be a problem). Saying that you are a National Socialist is illegal. Glorifying NS or Hitler is also illegal (again; they can stretch that a long way).
Most of the time you have to pay some money (several 1000 Euro). Then you lose you’re civil rights for a period of 5 to 10 years (you can no longer vote, work for the gouverment, or run for office, …). And then you go to jail for a maximum of 5 years (depending on what you said or did). Talk about draconian measures…
Our enemies are scared to death of the truth. The hysterical reaction you get, and the following legal problems are proof in itself that something is rotten with the whole thing. And not dealing with that part of history is cowardly at best. We HAVE to adress it if we want to regain our sanity as a people. The-you-know-what is the basic ingredient of the poison that is killing us.
(BTW: I hope my English is not to bad)
August, you distinguish between descriptive and normative revision of history. The former addresses objective facts [what actually occurred] and the latter addresses what different actors ought to have done [if only…]. I just wanted to observe that sometimes these two are intertwined, and have obvious political implications. For example, the standard WWII narrative is that the nasty Mr. Hitler wanted to murder all the Joos and take over the world (boo! hiss!) and the poor beleagered Allies had to pull themselves out of a depression to rally and stop him. But in fact, it was really a European-peoples civil war, between a world view that would respect national differences and permit national self-determination, and a world view that was eager to engender social conflict and erase national and even other natural differences (e.g. between men and women). In fact it’s amazing how child-like and how propaganda-based is the typical view of WWII that people have. But my point is that observing the real nature of the conflict is objective revision: it really was a war between national self-determination, and internationalist erasure of natural differences. But then we immediately observe that the actors ought to have done different things. The “Allies” should have correctly perceived the situation (but the Joos already operated their money and their media). And the obvious political implication is that the wrong side won the war.
Anyway keep up the great work, keep us thinking. Thanks.
DJF,
I think there is another motive at work in Johnson’s arguments. I think he is sincerely convinced of what he believes to be his moral high ground in granting Jews not only their own privileged statecraft in Israel, but in simply arguing that the fate that befell European Jewry was essentially evil. If you examine the basic position of his “New Right” perspective, it has explicitly disavowed virtually every sin that has been laid at the doorstep of our race: Colonialism, imperialism and slavery. The real problem is not so much his naivety about Jews, which he certainly exhibits, but his appalling ignorance of where is touted “universal nationalism” and disavowal of our past leads us.
I, for one, am glad that colonialism is a fact of history, and that it has formed an expansionary bulwark of our race. European Americans owe their existence to it. So do Australians and other people of European descent outside of Europe proper. It represents a basic expansionary urge that is fundamental to life.
There would not even be racial types were it not for “imperiaism most foul”. The expansion of our race into Europe and the biological displacement and absorption of the Neanderthal is the most primordial. Furthermore, though Whites should be proud of their colonial past, they should also be mindful that they are not unique in it. Racial and ethnic types that occupy current stretches of space made their way there, primordially, at the expense of others. Once we cease that struggle, we relinquish a fundamental urge that has given rise to us.
I do not think that people of European descent should try to purchase acceptance of White racial nationalism on the promise of relinquishing what Johnson thinks are past ills. I speak for myself here, and not necessarily The White Network, but if we are capable of taking and securing a living space for our kind, we should do it. Johnson already grants validity to such an act on the part of the biological Jew, who has ceased soil not his own, but I am becoming more convinced that it is because Johnson genuinely believes that forfeiting colonialism on the part of all peoples will secure the existence of all present racial and ethnic types.
Struggle is a fundamental aspect of the living world. This is the deepest arena in which Johnson errs. The very history of life is a history of a succession of forms that have struggle against other types and have displaced them. Once this kind of primordial struggle is relinquished, all claim to life is relinquished.
Alexander from Flanders,
I appreciate your response and I am certainly aware of the political and legal issues prevalent in Europe. A close contact of mine tells me, for example, that it is illegal to own a copy of Mein Kampf in their country. And it is not so much the matter of agreeing with everything Adolf Hitler performed as a statesman that is the real issue. Though I am a National-Socialist, I recognize that White nationalists more generally are going to have disagreements with me. But where I feel that there is agreement, or should be, is the way Adolf Hitler and World War II are utilized to tear down our societies.
Carl,
I can certainly agree that sometimes descriptive and normative revisionism intertwine. How a statesman or nation should have acted is sometimes a function of what was the case, and revising the latter becomes a precondition for the former. In a sense, this is what Buchanan achieves in his book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. He argues that in fact Hitler had no designs on the Western democracies, America, or the British Empire, and proceeds to argue on the basis of that how British policymakers, especially Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, should have acted. I think that the British government had ample evidence, in the form if nothing else of Hitler’s blatant Anglophilia, evident in speeches and in diplomacy including his informal offer via Ribbentrop in 1937 to establish an entente or alliance with Germany, where Germany would actually help defend British imperial interests in exchange for a “free hand in the East”, principally to counter Bolshevism. I should likely have made it clearer in my program, but I do see the two as overlapping at at times, and in very important ways.