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.

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.

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.

Anyway keep up the great work, keep us thinking. Thanks.

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)

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.