New approach to the holocaust

Himmler_advert


If there’s a moral of the story on the recent debate at The Occidental Observer about the so-called “holocaust” that can only be that most white nationalists are cognitively immature. I find it scandalous that I was the only one who linked Greg Johnson’s piece as an important article, as can be ascertained at the bottom of the TOO article (5 trackbacks to “Dealing with the Holocaust”): four trackbacks to this blog and the other one to my nationalist blog in Spanish.

One example is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?”, where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.

Just contrast most of the nationalists’ dogmatic stance on the “holocaust” with the intellectual trajectory of David Irving, who a few years ago acknowledged that at least more than two millions of Jews died in the camps (source, National Alliance News):

According to an article in the extremist leftist Guardian newspaper in Britain, historian David Irving has backtracked on his earlier views about the Holocaust myth and now accepts that the Nazis engaged in mass extermination of Jews in certain camps.

Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallized rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the Second World War and that the “Jewish problem” was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.”

He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland, but goes on to claim that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was fake. “It was not the centre of the killing operations—it has only become a focus because it is the site that is best preserved. Much of what is shown [to] the tourists there is faked postwar—watchtowers, even the famous gas chamber.”

He added: “In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler’s men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year.”

Pressed as to whether this change undermined his previous stance, Irving replied: “It is a crystallization of my view.” Asked if he now accepts there had been a Holocaust against the Jewish people he said he was “not going to use their trade name.”

He added: “I do accept that the Nazis quite definitely, that Heinrich Himmler, organized and directed a program, a clandestine program, for the liquidation of European Jews… and that in 1942-43 alone over 2.5 million Jews were killed in those three camps.” He added that Hitler was “completely in the dark” about the program.

This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.

I find it pathetic that this holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response. If the astronomic amount of time spent by nationalists and non-nationalists in researching paranoid conspiracy theories like 9/11 would have been spent researching real historical facts, like what happened in the Gulag under Stalin’s willing executioners, the tide could have been turned in our favor long ago.

I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).

46 Replies on “New approach to the holocaust

  1. “One example of such immaturity is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?,” where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.”

    Of course these Holocaust deniers can’t accept the possibility that the Nazis may have exterminated Jews – since to do so would remove all justification for wanting the Jews exterminated now.

    Make no mistake: William Pierce, Alex Linder, Carolyn Yeager, Scott Hadding, and others like them First: Deny Jews were exterminated and Second: Want Jews exterminated.

    Let’s wash, rinse, and repeat that: WN Holocaust Deniers think it’s insane to suggest Nazis could have rounded up and gassed Jews while – at one and the same time – they think it’s even more insane not to round up and gas Jews if the opportunity ever presents itself.

    In short, though the original Nazis were never so bloodthirsty, today’s new, improved Nazis are. This is why Holocaust revisionism does not belong in a political movement like WN, something I’ve stated years before Greg Johnson and just about everyone else. Nor does religion. Nor does the issue of homosexuality. Nor does anything else. Just the issue of white preservation.

    Hold Back This Day
    The Towers of Eden

    1. It’s funny that Ward Kendall should say this on July 29:

      “Of course these Holocaust deniers can’t accept the possibility that the Nazis may have exterminated Jews – since to do so would remove all justification for wanting the Jews exterminated now.”

      Because on June 23 he wrote this in a comment to The White Network:

      “A final note to CY: As for solving the JQ, the only solution I see is mass extermination on a nationwide scale. I’ve said this before. Short of a mass deportation, mass extermination is the only solution. Men like David Duke is too timid to say so, however. So is Kevin MacDonald. So is everyone else in the WN movement except Alex Linder now and William Pierce in the past.”

      Yes, he said the only solution he saw was mass extermination on a nationwide scale … and he has said it before! David Duke and KMac are too timid to say so, but Alex Linder and Wm. Pierce were
      not. Compare it to what he says here about “Nazis”.

      It felt like a trap to me, and I replied with this:

      “Are you prepared to testify to a congressional committee on that? LOL. Where did you say that? […] You could very easily be someone trying to make me say things to destroy this network. Who do you work for?”

      To which he did not reply back. So what is Ward Kendall up to? You are both double-talkers at best.

  2. David Irving is going in the right direction, in my opinion. The exaggeration and the lies produced by the mainstream concerning the holocaust have been so outrageous that it made us, in knee-jerk reaction, produce equally outrageous rebuttals and conspiracies in desperation.

    The political location of White Nationalism is metaphorically wallowing in what is kind of a political solitary confinement: so suppressed, so isolated, that our thoughts can wander, and too often insanity grips what is often a sound racialist mind.

    White Nationalism is also truth: it is a pill from modern sickness, a sickness so strong that the cure itself must be potent, and thus can produce a powerful reaction. Many cannot handle these side effects and spiral into habits and ways of thinking that do not ultimately support the realization of the 14 words.

    After learning so much concerning the holdomor I consider any Jewish death toll by the Nationalist Socialist as a rational and understandable act in the face of the crimes of Jewish-Marxists.

    The truth during WW2 will forever be enshrouded by the anarchy and debris of the conflict. We cannot run from our past, but Jewish-Marxists crimes are so profound that we need not fear any particular guilt in comparison.

    Where we have failed is allowing the Jews to inscribe within the very laws of physics that European Nationalism=inevitable genocide. (And it need not be even particularly racial in discourse: Ask Milosevic’s Serbia)

    It is a weak argument that is widely accepted, based on nothing more then a few historical precedences and the “victim-celebrity” status of the Jewish people.

    I have nothing more than a hopeful hunch, but I believe White Nationalism is finally but slowly orienting towards sounder minds more and relevant strategies and ideas.






    1. Agreed, and as I said, I find it pathetic that the older generation of nationalists spend their time in Fantasyland (9/11, monocausalism, knee-jerk denialism, etc.).

      How many of them have read at least the abridged version of the most influential book of the 20th century: a testimonial about an archipelago that dwarfed the Nazi camps in Poland?

  3. “that our thoughts can wander, and too often insanity grips what is often a sound racialist mind.”

    Very true. Experience has taught me this.

  4. I find it pathetic that this Holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response.

    Holocaust ≠ Holodomor

    The Holocaust was an attempt based on racism by self-identified Aryans to wipe the Jewish race out of existence.

    The Holodomor was the massacre of rebellious Ukrainian kulaks undertaken by self-identified communists out of communism.

    Your comparison is not going to convince anyone except the choir (WNs).

    As to David Irving, he stakes everything on one document whose validity is estimated to 80%? Good for him. But that will leave the physical, mathematical and topographical arguments of deniers unaddressed.

    “I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “Holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).”

    Do you realize that from the mainstream point of view, you are yourself a conspiracy theorist and a crank because of your views on race?

    The official version is that everything is OK in the West.

    1. “Holocaust ≠ Holodomor”

      If you gave me 60 years of complete academic freedom to make a legion of claims based on no respectable scholarship, alongside 60 years to produce thousands of Holodomor documentaries and emotionally gripping movies, and “anti-hate” laws both implicit and explicit outlawing any Holodomor-revisionism from the pubic light, then I can by all means can make the starvation of Ukrainian peasants equally abhorrent to the public as the Holocaust.

      I would say “never again” when anyone thought of even mentioning a socialistic or egalitarian policy. The leftists, communists, and Jews would be floundering within their internet cave decrying their unjust suppression and the clarity and their underground truths.

      If racial-conservatism was not so utterly prudish about competing in the culture wars, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.

      After our hard failure (World War 2) we had repeated, constant soft-failures, that slowly but surely turned Europe and America on its deracinated derailment.

      For instance: Walt Disney could have been our vanguard in the culture wars against Jewish takeover, and the gentile elite left him isolated as the Jews slowly encapsulated Hollywood entirely into their Zionist worldview.

      “Your comparison is not going to convince anyone except the choir (WNs).”

      This is sadly true, in a mass conversion point of view. The holocaust holds such mythological status that any ground White Nationalism gains will likely be due to avoiding the Holocaust rather than any confrontation with it.

    2. Do you realize that from the mainstream point of view, you are yourself a conspiracy theorist and a crank because of your views on race?

      From the mainstream POV my views may be considered as “crankish” as the scientific views of Phil Rushton, yes: but no conspiracy theorist certainly.

      1. The locution “conspiracy theory” has two meanings.

        – The original one: theory that implies the existence of a secret plot.

        – The Wikipedia/New York Times one: any theory that disagrees with the official theory. For example, disbelieving in global warming or the benevolence of mass immigration automatically makes you a “conspiracy theorist” — even if you never talked about any secret plot. See the Wiki article about Fjordman, for example.

        Assuming you were using the first definition, then I must immediately insist on the fact that serious Holocaust deniers — such as Dr. Robert Faurisson or Vincent Reynouard — never claimed the Holocaust is a deliberate lie originating from a Jewish plot. They explain it as an ordinary war rumor that blew out of proportion, and was left alone by the Allied powers because they all had an interest in it — denazify the remnants of the Third Reich, and dampen the reality of their own war crimes.

        The ones advocating a conspiracy are actually mainstream historians. They claim that such a massive enterprise has been able to stay secret and hidden from everybody (including journalists and video cameras) from 1941 to 1945. There is also Raul Hillberg, who claims that the Holocaust originated in a “mind synchronization” between German bureaucrats that left no written orders or documents.

  5. Caesar, tell me, have you spent “as much time” reading the Gulag Archipelago and the footnotes referenced in this article?

  6. “This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.”

    So where is the evidence supporting a “fact” of those 2,5 million “exterminated” jews?

    Show me the mass-graves, the bones, the teeth, the documents – what have you got?

    as always NOTHING because .. ermh it “evaporated”

    compare that to the Nazi response to the vinnytsia massacre, here we have death-toll, forensics, independent confirmation from the red cross etc. etc.

  7. I’ve never used the term “conspiracy theory” to label Holo revisionism.

    It was meant by insinuation and association.

    1. But not even by association.

      If you followed my most recent posts you would know that I have been called “Jew” three times in different blogs and emails: for criticizing 9/11 conspiracy theories (CTs), for criticizing monocausalism, and more recently for dismissing JFK conspiracy theories together with other CTs in a thread about Holo revisionism.

      Also, when I wrote that paragraph I had in mind that 9/11 “Truth”, monocausalism and Holo revisionism are the subjects that presently distance me the most from a substantial percentage of white nationalists.

      This doesn’t mean of course that the three are CTs. Only the 9/11 Truther movement is genuinely a conspiracy theory.

  8. It is important to remember that revisionism is in no way part of white nationalism. Had the nazis won ww2 and blamed all kinds of insanities on the defeated communists or capitalists, then it would still be the task of revisionism to distinguish properly between historical facts and war-time greuel-propaganda.

    Secondly, it seems confused to suggest that one should emphasize the holodomor INSTEAD of denying the holocaust. The one does in no way exclude the other. When arguing about the holocaust, one should emphasize 1. that it never happened and that there is no credible evidence neither documentary or forensic for any homicidal gaschambers anywhere, AND 2. explain that german anti-jewish hostility and ww2 internment rose as a response to the mass-killings resulting from jewish bolshevism – especially the fate of the volga-german minority

    1. Secondly, it seems confused to suggest that one should emphasize the holodomor INSTEAD of denying the holocaust. The one does in no way exclude the other. When arguing about the holocaust, one should emphasize 1. that it never happened

      But that’s precisely the point. If Irving is going to the right direction, as Bluegrass says above (and I believe he is), then the Gulag must me emphasized instead of denying the holocaust for the simple reason that millions of jews could have indeed died in the Second World War.

      If they indeed died, negation does not help us. Conversely, blaming the Jewish Bolsheviks does the trick—beautifully.

      This is how I’ve started to discuss with my brainwashed family when the subject comes up: “Who killed more civilians in the last century, the Germans or the Jews?” When they respond “The Germans” I state. “Nope. Yagoda killed more than Himmler,” and then I start to explain who Yagoda and his henchmen were.

      Extremely effective! Especially when I say that the System hid from us these historical facts for decades (e.g., by never translating Solzhenitsyn’s latest major work either to Spanish or English).

      1. “the System hid from us these historical facts for decades (e.g., by never translating Solzhenitsyn’s latest major work either to Spanish or English).”

        The System! You cannot say the Jews, because that would be monocausalist!

      2. Monocausalism? It was only Jewish Bolsheviks that killed civilians? Revisionism/denial vis-a-vis Yagoda and the Holodomor is already well established. Even Conquest now says that there was no Holodomor, no intentional famine.

      3. Chechar: “I doubt all of the Barcelona publishing houses, which translate about everything important, are in the hand of Jews.”

        I think the Western media and the American government used to be very supportive of Solzhenitsyn, until he was expelled from the USSR. They liked his denunciation of the Soviet gulags. From what I’ve heard, their support for Solzhenitsyn began to wane when he began criticizing the West and revealed himself to be a Russian nationalist. Then in 2001/2002, he published the two volumes of Two Hundred Years Together, and officially became an antisemite. He was no longer heard of in the media.

        Apart from the Jews, who holds a grudge against him? Apart from the Jewish question, why would the Barcelona publishing houses refuse to translate his works? Is it frowned upon to criticize the Soviet Union in Spain? If Two Hundred Years Together is the only book that they have declined to translate, it has to be because of the Jews.

  9. The Guardian (2007): “[Irving] says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland”

    It means that Irving is now a semi-revisionist. The Jewish controlled media say the figure is 6 million Jews gassed by the Germans as a matter of course. It’s difficult to know if Jewish and semitically correct “historians” have an official estimate of how many Jews were (secretely!) gassed or killed. Irving now says that 2.4 million were killed. And Carolyn Yeager’s friends say fewer than half a million Jews lost their lives.

    I don’t have to start my own inquiry. I know that the Jewish media and “historians” are liars and crooks who obviously hate White people and are trying to silence us. Who are the exceptions? By contrast, people like Faurisson are intellectually rigorous. So…

    “He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that …”

    When 2.4 million people get killed, you would expect to find more evidence than just one piece of paper.

    1. I don’t trust Jewish historians for obvious reasons (with the possible exception of Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears, a work that is appreciated even by those who write at TOO). But yesterday I wrote to David Irving asking when will his book on Himmler be released. Today he replied: “about another year”.

      I trust Irving’s research methods and look forward to what (to my mind) will be a far more objective approach to the “Holocaust” of what we recently listened in Carolyn’s show.

      1. That’s because Carolyn wasn’t arguing about historical data. She and Hadding Scott only were expressing their personal opinion on the relevance of Holo revisionism in the WN fight.

  10. @pm doobie

    Had the nazis won ww2 and blamed all kinds of insanities on the defeated communists or capitalists, then it would still be the task of revisionism to distinguish properly between historical facts and war-time greuel-propaganda.

    Correct, but I doubt the Nazis would have done it. It is not in the German psyche to fabricate and maintain obvious lies or to humiliate your defeated enemies. Even during wartime, when it is an expected tactic to lie and cheat as part of war propaganda, they didn’t do it. Compared to Voice of America, their Deutsche Wochenschau was very fact-based, and focused more on military reports than on demonizing the enemy.

    On the other hand, since the days of Noah’s Ark, David’s armies and the Exodus, the Jews and their Christian minions have transformed falsehood into a way of life. It is therefore normal, as Armor says just above me, to be highly suspicious of whatever new “incredible event” they peddle to us.

    My suspicion of the “Holocaust” dates back to when I was 10… already at this age, I found all of it a bit gross, too Bible-like for my tastes. The main question I asked myself at this time was: “Why didn’t the Jews waiting in line for the gas chamber revolt? Why didn’t any of them, certain of his inevitable death anyway, have the idea to grasp the gun of a nearby guard?” Like all religious tales, the Holohoax is full of those major inconsistencies…

  11. @pm doobie

    Had the nazis won ww2 and blamed all kinds of insanities on the defeated communists or capitalists, then it would still be the task of revisionism to distinguish properly between historical facts and war-time greuel-propaganda.

    Correct, but I doubt the NS would have done it. It is not in the German psyche to fabricate and maintain obvious lies or to humiliate your defeated enemies. Even during wartime, when it is an expected tactic to lie and cheat as part of war propaganda, they didn’t do it. Compared to Voice of America, their Deutsche Wochenschau was very fact-based, and focused more on military reports than on demonizing the enemy.

    On the other hand, since the days of Noah\’s Ark, David\’s armies and the Exodus, the Jews and their Christian minions have transformed falsehood into a way of life. It is therefore normal, as Armor says just above me, to be highly suspicious of whatever new ”incredible event” they peddle to us.

    My suspicion of the ”Holocaust” dates back to when I was 10… already at this age, I found all of it a bit gross, too Bible-like for my tastes. The main question I asked myself at this time was: ”Why didn’t the thousands of Jews waiting in line for the gas chamber revolt? Why didn’t any of them, certain of his inevitable death anyway, have the idea to grasp the gun of a nearby guard?” Like all religious tales, the Holohoax is full of those major inconsistencies…

    1. In his book Solzhenitsyn asks the same question: Why didn’t the millions of would-be “zeks” that worked to their deaths in the Gulag revolted. (But the Jews did revolt successfully at Sobibor, didn’t they?)

      1. Irrelevant comparison, again.

        The prisoners standing in line at the Gulags thought they had a chance of surviving and leaving.

        The prisoners standing in line at Auschwitz knew they were going to die. Partly because according to the official version, children were gassed on arrival.

      2. You just advised me to read a book on the “Holohoax”. Will you ever consider reading the Gulag? It looks to me that you are not aware of the truly holocaustian horrors of what happened in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin (I mean, a visual/narrative recount, not just the cold facts).

  12. So, Cesar, are you going to wait for 2013 and Irving’s Himmler to get an educated opinion on the subject? Sounds a bit far away.

    In the meantime, you could perhaps familiarize yourself with revisionism. To an anglophone, I’d recommend The Hoax Of the XXth Century by Butz.

    Why?

    – In 36 years, no attempt has been made to attack this book or refute its arguments, despite its fame. Which is the sign it strikes right.

    – It is strongly recommended by Faurisson.

    1. Yes: I will read The Hoax of the XXth Century in 2013 as the voice of the “attorney” vs. the voice of the “prosecutor”. I cannot read The Hoax of the XXth Century without listening to the other voice. As I already said, by experience I know that that is the ticket to being deceived (pursuing self-esteem often leads to self-delusion, remember?). Once I read both books I could say I have “listened” to both sides and will reach my own conclusion.

    2. So, Cesar, are you going to wait for 2013 and Irving’s Himmler to get an educated opinion on the subject? Sounds a bit far away.

      This patronizing statement implies that I am the one in need to be “educated”, not you by reading Weber, Irving or the non-Jew, mainstream scholars on the Holocaust (and even Solzhenitsyn on the Gulag). The underlying assumption is that your “attorney” got it all right and that since all of it is a “Holohoax” those who don’t believe in the “hoax” need to be “educated”.

      As with monocausalism and 9/11 conspiracy theories, this is exactly the position that has had the opposite effect on my mind: driving me away from revisionism and those revisionists who won’t ever dare to listen to the other side.

      1. “those revisionists who won’t ever dare to listen to the other side”

        I think you have it backward. In the last decades, we have been educated 24/7 about “the holocaust” by the Jewish side. It’s time to listen to the White advocates, even though it is forbidden to do so.
        If you are interested in the anti-revisionist side, you don’t need Weber and Irving. You should just turn on the TV or read a book by Elie Wiesel.

      2. Weber and Irving, unlike Wiesel, are white advocates too. Are you assuming that hard-core revisionists got it all right, that the Holo is 100% a hoax? I prefer patience and wait and see what a soft-core revisionist like Irving will say before embarking on a “100% hoax” project that smells as phony as 9/11 theories. (Incidentally, I don’t believe that the “official” story on 9/11 is “kosher” as I have been told many times in the still primitive WN blogosphere.)

  13. @ Armor

    “The System! You cannot say the Jews, because that would be monocausalist!”

    America’s most fanatical National Socialist, James Mason, also called it The System. He was not ignorant of subversive Jewry by any means! For any WN I highly advise reading his “Siege” compendium.

    @ Chechar

    Which book on Yagoda do you find most accurate, useful, and scholarly?

    1. I read the Gulag in 1999. IIRC Yagoda is mentioned there, even depicted in one of the book’s pictures. Unless you are a Russian, I strongly recommend the abridged edition (the longer one is for scholars and a little boring—1,600 pages!). Solzhenitsyn himself agreed with the English editor’s abridgement.

      P.S.

      I use “The System” because Pierce used it throughout his Turner Diaries even though the tribe got exterminated at the end of the novel.

  14. that smells as phony as 9/11 theories.

    Don’t know the truth about 9/11, since I never studied the question out of lack of interest. But are you aware several books have been written to answer Popular Mechanics point by point? Have you read them?

    This patronizing statement implies that I am the one in need to be “educated”, not you by reading Weber, Irving or the non-Jew, mainstream scholars on the Holocaust […]

    Precisely. I imply that you know nothing about the problematic you’re discussing: neither the mainstream side nor the revisionist side.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that: you could just not be interested at all.

    But the problem comes when, from the height of your ignorance, you deliver lessons to White Nationalists. Must I copy and paste below your non-neutral statements on the question?

    As to me, I don’t know where you got the idea I have never been exposed to mainstream history on the Holocaust. I’ve spent my whole life in it.

    1. I never said that you were never “exposed” to the “mainstream story” (e.g., MSM TV, etc). It is the Nth time you put words in my mouth. I am saying that you have never studied, and for the tone of your comments here I guess you will never study, the other side. My metaphor of “leaving the courtroom” every time the prosecutor speaks (i.e., forfeiting the research of why Irving and Weber changed their minds) seems to apply to people like you.

      At least I acknowledge that I have not studied both sides on the Holocaust. I am temporarily deferring judgment to Irving, the only scholar I trust on the Second World War. And I also said that I will wait for Irving’s book to be released before listening to your attorney; reading one of those revisionist books you recommend (otherwise I’d be listening only to one side).

      But the problem comes when, from the height of your ignorant…

      I would say that those who, like you, talk with such self-assurance about what happened in the Soviet Union without actually reading the most influential book of the 20th century are the truly ignorant.

      1. I am saying that you have never studied, and for the tone of your comments here I guess you will never study, the other side.

        And you are wrong. My exposition to the official thesis goes much further than TV/school lessons.

        why Irving and Weber changed their minds

        Irving never changed his mind about anything. His version has always been the same since publishing Hitler’s War: the Holocaust happened on the orders of Himmler, without State blueprints or authorization, it killed around 3-4 million Jews, mostly by shootings in the East. And Irving never studied the Holocaust closely, per his own admission, so I don’t understand why you mention him as some kind of authority on the subject.

        I would say I am satisfied in my own mind that in various locations, Nazi criminals acting probably without direct orders from above, did carry out liquidation of groups of people including Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally incurable people and the rest. I am quite plain about that in my own mind. I can’t prove it, I haven’t got into that, I haven’t investigated that particular aspect of history but from the documents I have seen, I’ve got the kind of gut feeling which suggests to me that that is probably accurate.

        I am temporarily deferring judgment to Irving, the only scholar I trust on the Second World War.

        Oh, really? Now it is acceptable to research only a single source?

        I would say that those who, like you, talk with such self-assurance about what happened in the Soviet Union without actually reading the most influential book of the 20th century are the truly ignorant.

        You can’t accuse me of something you are yourself guilty of.

        In dozens of sentences, you have repeatedly expressed your vocal opinion that the Holocaust did happen and that the WN community should move away from Holo denialism to safeguard its credibility and refocus its energy elsewhere. All that, without anything more than an instinctive guess.

        You can have the opinions and guesses you want. But some of them can be damaging to your credibility. By vocally endorsing the Holocaust hoax, I’m afraid you have more or less hurt it in WN circles.

      2. Deviance: You don’t understand. In a subject overwhelmed with enemy propaganda (WW2) there’s nothing wrong to use a single source (David Irving) if you don’t have time to embark on a mammoth study & many sources of what happened in such war. There’s nothing wrong with deferring temporarily to a single source on the Holocaust either (Irving again) before embarking on a project to research the subject properly.

        I am prepared to question the official version if I am faced with sound arguments and historical facts in the coming 2013 “courtroom”. The problem with people like you is that you cannot tolerate even a provisional judgment, or educated guess —I believe more or less what Greg Johnson stated in his recent TOO article—, before the Big Days of the court debates start in my mind (that is, when I read two of the best books on the subject from opposite sides).

        “Irving never changed his mind about anything”.

        Really? This is what Metapedia says:

        Over the years, Irving’s stance on the Holocaust has changed significantly. By the mid-1980s Irving began associating himself with Institute for Historical Review and began giving lectures to groups such as the patriotic German Deutsche Volksunion arguing the Germans did not exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II. He also suggested that parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her surviving father, and in 1988 testified for the defence in Canadian at the Ernst Zündel Holocaust trial. Irving was later to claim that Zündel had convinced him that the Holocaust had not occurred.

        As to what evidence further led Irving to believe that the Holocaust never occurred, he cited a report by self-styled execution expert Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. After the trial, Irving published Leuchter’s report in the United Kingdom and wrote its foreword. In Errol Morris’ 1999 documentary about Leuchter, Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Irving said, “The big point [of the Leuchter report]: there is no significant residue of cyanide in the brickwork. That’s what converted me. When I read that in the report in the courtroom in Toronto, I became a hard-core disbeliever.”

        In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler’s War he had removed all references to “death camps” and the Holocaust.

  15. “Are you assuming that hard-core revisionists got it all right, that the Holo is 100% a hoax? I prefer patience and wait and see what a soft-core revisionist like Irving will say before embarking on a “100% hoax” project that smells as phony as 9/11 theories.”

    Irving dont know anything about the holocaust. He has never published anything about it, and never will. His way of doing history confines him to authentic documents. And since there are NO documents even suggesting something akin to an extermination program, Irving can never write anything sensible on the topic..

    The most neutral and scientific holocaust researchers are “100 percent hoaxers” because.. hmmm, the Holocaust IS evidently 100 percent a hoax. Not a single jew has ever been killed in a gass-chamber during ww2.

    If you want to spend your time wisely untill 2013, you should read the holocaust handbook series, they are all available as pdfs online.
    I am sure they will answer whatever questions you might have concerning “100 percent hoaxers”

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/3672041/Complete-Holocaust-Handbook-Series

    I´d begin with “The Rudolf Report” then proceed to “treblinka – transit camp or extermination camp”.. but all the volumes are scholarly, and has NEVER been refuted in any serious way. And the few times some clever mainstream historian have tried, he has been completely humiliated on the scholarly level, for the simple reason that the revisionists knows infinitely more about those camps than the liars, because the do their work out of passion.

    – To me personally I find it especially revealing that the name “Holocaust” (“burned entirely”) was picked – this very term contains the sorry excuse for the fact that there is ZERO physical evidence for the claim. – what a wicked little game they have played! – Not just the jews of course, but the allied and and the soviets aswell.

    1. You say that Irving knows nothing about the subject but—how ironic—: the link you added above includes two revisionist articles featuring… a photo of Irving! But according to your above claim now I’m not supposed to read an ignoramus like Irving. Therefore, I’m not supposed to study the content of the very link you just advised me to read??

  16. Batman…you’ve commented elsewhere that the Batman films contained an anti-white message. I forget where that was, how about making searchable comments on this website? Anyway, have you described this in more detail somewhere else, or could you elaborate here? You’re not being paranoid?

    1. Not “subtle” anti-white messages in the sense of something subliminal, no. But it is obvious that any film that features blacks in situations of power as if they were our equals has an anti-white massage. When I was a child it was unthinkable to make a film featuring, say, a white hero with a black boss; or a woman behaving like a male, etc. I am sufficiently old and feel as if I watched those black-and-white films yesterday. That has nothing to do with paranoia.