Holocaust denial

Posted by TRI on November 08, 2005, 09:49 AM | #

I’m curious: what exactly is your definition of “denial”, JJR?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 10:08 AM | #

Fantasising that it didn’t happen, which seems to be a disease on this thread.  And yes I agree, Adolf was a leftie—typical Big Government man.

Posted by AD on November 08, 2005, 10:11 AM | #

Unrelated, and somewhat kooky, but something i’ve always suspected in the dark kooky parts of my mind:

We Mutants
http://newnation.org/Millard/We-Mutants.html

Are race-conscious whites the beginnings of a new race? Does media, liberalism, indoctrination have absolutely nothing to do with why we’re aware and others are not? Do we have a naughty gene? I would be so relieved if it were true.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2005, 10:47 AM | #

“I notice that in some recent threads on this blog there has been something of a festival of holocaust denial and WW2 revisionism generally.  I am the last to claim that we normally get a fair and accurate picture of WW2. [...] But holocaust denial really is straying into the badlands of irrationality [...]  So I think I stand with something like 98% of the Western population in regarding holocaust deniers as fruitcakes.  That of itself does not make me right but it greatly affects the future readership of this blog.  This blog will be TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE in furthering majority rights if it comes to be seen as nothing more than an organ of the lunatic Right—which, I think, is about the present situation.”  (—from the log entry)

I agree with that and thanks, John, for posting those timely thoughts:  the blog definitely needed someone on the blogger side to say exactly that.  Since Geoff’s departure there’s been a mini-explosion of a kind of tentative effort at Hitler-sympathy among reader-commenters.  That sort of thing cannot become a theme in the readers’ comments threads here or the entire enterprise will go belly-up.  The ones doing it may think they’re helping in some way, setting the record straight or something, but all they’re doing is hurting, making it hard or impossible for others here to discuss the extremely important subjects this blog came into being precisely in order to air.  Please, reader-commenters, control yourselves while guests here.  Blogs have themes and that’s not this one’s theme.  PLEASE do not try to do “revisionism of Hitler’s image” in these threads.  If that’s your bag there are other blogs meant for that, blogs which welcome it and thrive on it.  Please have respect for this blog:  it wasn’t meant to be that or anything like that.  Thanks again, John, for posting that admonition as an entry.

Posted by Truth Be Told on November 08, 2005, 11:02 AM | #

Right, “holocaust denial” refers of course to Jews killed as POW’s in WW2. Not Gypsies, nor Chinese, nor Phillipinos, no. And not to other such events of the 20th century as in Cambodia, Belgian Congo, Armenia, China or Ukraine.

Last I checked with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA, they were claiming 2-3 million Jewish deaths total, which would place Jewish POW deaths in WW2 below many others as a %, like Gypsies, and below most others as an absolute, like German civilians killed in fire-bombing raids.

Of the 2-3 million deaths claimed, many, if not most, were likely due to crowd diseases like typhus which swept thru underweight POW populations. Germany could not then, and still can’t, feed itself, so POW’s often went without.

Tellingly, no large-scale graveyards of the supposed victims have ever been found. Crematoria allegedly used to incinerate corpses existed only in 6 or so camps in the East, and ran from, at most, late 1941 to late 1944. The Soviets admitted to constructing what remains at Auschwitz for their own purposes after the fact. There are no records of deliveries of the perhaps million+ tons of fuel needed to powderize bone with heat. Population surveys of Jews before and after that war show little downward movement.

The whole event is scarcely mentioned at all in popular media or accounts until about 1967. The oscar-winning film from the 1950’s, Stalag 17, discussed ‘gas showers’ as non-lethal lice-killers. Also, killing productive POW’s, or slaves, is bad for a war effort.

Yes, most white Christians have bought this story hook, line and sinker. Some points to remember are that a survey in America years back greatly worried local Zionists when it revealed perhaps half of respondants had never heard of ‘The Holocaust’. Also, talking too much about this probably hinders acceptance of the more palatable causes of white equality, civil rights, and nationalism.

Until the logjam at the top breaks, which may be happening now in France, change will likely be incremental and limited to the edges. When the change does come, “The Holocaust” story won’t last a year, as a good wind would knock it down at this point.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 11:51 AM | #

TBT’s rubbish is another example of the kind of thing this blog needs much less of. Those of us who remember the 60s and even the 50s know that the Holocaust was a very live issue in those years.  Why do you think Israel was founded? What about the Eichmann trial.  GW needs to get a grip on this blog FAST—every holocaust denial or anti-Semitic post attracts all the nutters on the Internet like flies.

Posted by James Bowery on November 08, 2005, 12:37 PM | #

Here’s a suggestion:

Since there is no forum for the honest discussion of the Holocaust, create a category for “Genocide” within which topics such as the Holocaust and the Holodomor and Stalin’s purges can be discussed by people of this blog.  If necessary, keep its entries off the front page but allow those who are well informed about these issues to educate the rest of us.

I, for one, just don’t have the time to wade through all of the material to come to any sort of conclusion.  Neither can I dismiss the issue as unimportant since there really does seem to have arisen a new theocracy in the West—in which Christ is replaced by the Jews as the innocent victim of which we mus all ask forgiveness—and within which heresy is a criminal act.  Unfortunately, it just isn’t possible to avoid this issue.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 08, 2005, 12:41 PM | #

Martin,

The only MR contributor to post on the Holocaust was Geoff, and then only regarding a link to a clearly sincere and not a whit unbalanced Jewish revisionist.  The rest has been thread discussion.  Should I make a special example of “deniers” and drive them from the threads?  My policy generally on comments is to favour benign neglect in the belief that our readers - all of them - are intelligent people who have the right to read sense and nonsense, and judge the difference for themselves.

I know full well I am running a risk of some readers assuming that we must, by association, all be evil HD’s.  I just prefer to think the best of them rather than that they are nervous wrecks who could go running out of the door screaming at any moment.  I suspect that the vast majority are competent judges and independent-minded people - and that’s the sort of diversity MR must celebrate, to use a rather well-worn epithet!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 01:02 PM | #

Depends what you want GW.  Total freedom of speech is an American ideal, and by and large a leftist ideal (which they then restrict by their own edicts) rather than a British one—Pitt’s 1790s had an offense of “seditious libel” which would have covered much of the more extreme stuff on MR.

I think you need to control not the threads themselves but the thread topics.  Both holocaust/its denial and the Jewish conspiracy are limited topics of only marginal practical importance, that need to be treated as such or you will attract pond life that you too don’t really want (the MR tradition of anonymous posting is a problem here too—people feel free to post any old rubbish because there’s no possibility of comeback.) Many of the posters here are off living in their own little world, and will repel moderate readers, who will be worried that one false statement and the fruitcakes are dressed in white hoods burning crosses on their front lawn. I agree that fruitcakes have a right to self expression too, but am not sure from your point of view that you want this to be it.

My recommendation therefore would NOT be that you try to ban holocaust deniers or anti-Semites, but simply agree with the other most frequent posters that WWII and/or Jewish topics be limited to 1-2 per month, no more. That way, those wishing to focus exclusively on such matters will find happier homes elsewhere.

Geoff is a slightly special case; while I disagree with many of his views, and find some of them repellant, he’s very intelligent and a voice we should listen to.  As I’ve said elsewhere, I didn’t object to his Nazi kitsch, except that that should have been counted as the monthly WWII post, and not succeeded by two more in quick succession. He wasn’t pushed anyway, he jumped, so I hope after a period of reflection he returns.  There are however other posters who lack Geoff’s manic Midwestern aggression, but also lack his IQ and his basic connection to the real world.

Just my ten cents worth.

Posted by Al Ross on November 08, 2005, 02:10 PM | #

I would be interested to hear Martin Hutchinson’s thoughts regarding the fact that the numbers commemorated in official Auschwitz memorial were revised downwards.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 02:13 PM | #

There’s no question certain Holocaust claims were overblown; I think the reality is probably in the 2-4 million range, which puts Hitler below Mao, Stalin and probably Pol Pot on the list of history’s bad guys. But putting it in accurate historical perspective is one thing, denying it happened and glorifying the odious left wing Nazi regime is quite another.

Posted by Al Ross on November 08, 2005, 02:15 PM | #

Oops, omission of the definite article, Prynter’s Devil dozed off. Apologies.

Posted by Al Ross on November 08, 2005, 03:15 PM | #

Martin Hutchinson may well have engaged in considerable research regarding the Holocaust, so it is possible that he will not have overlooked Prof. Arthur Butz’s masterly work ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’. In it we learn that,as a device to befuddle the minds of gullible Whites,the Jews concocted their first ‘holocaust victims’ figure at a round 40 million. Subsequently they may have harboured some qualms that the credulity of their dupes might not be wholly infinite, and reduced the figure to 25 million, then prudently cut it to 12 million, before finally settling on 6 million as the largest number the goyim would accept without question.

Posted by stari_momak on November 08, 2005, 03:23 PM | #

Here is a Jewish ‘conservative’—Charles Krauthammer—on Mel Gibson’s hit film.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2431

Blood libel, he calls it. Christianity, you see, is uniquely flawed. It didn’t redeem itself until 1965. A fateful year, that, as anyone who knows anything about US immigration policy knows.

And that is why the JQ must, on occasion, be brought up. Because the central event for Jews, especially liberal American Jews—the event which holds them together, gives them identity, is the Holocaust. With time it has grown bigger, and with time more and more malevalent actors appear. Not only Hitler and the Nazis, but all Germans. Not only all Germans, but the Pope (and by extention all Catholics). Not only a few colaborationist Poles, but the vast majority of Poles. Not only combatants, but the greedy bankers of Switzerland (that should raise the hackles on Martin’s back). Not only Europeans, but Americans whose evil immigration policy doomed millions to death (see the St. Louis incident). All guilty , all evil. Deserving of death, or at least dillution to the point of nor longer forming identifiable peoples.

And that’s why the Holocaust must be decentered from its current place in our history. And it must be de-sacrilized. Some perspective must be gained. Or else there is no nation in Western Europe, or in North America, that will be able to say—enough, this is ours, and we will not cede any more of it in an effort to expiate undeserved guilt.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 03:41 PM | #

GW, if the last two posts don’t demonstrate the problem, there is no solution to it.

Posted by Steve Edwards on November 08, 2005, 03:43 PM | #

Name one single benefit holocaust revisionism has ever accrued to Europeans.

Posted by Al Ross on November 08, 2005, 04:05 PM | #

The truth is intrinsically beneficial and doesnt require measurement.

Posted by Matra on November 08, 2005, 04:13 PM | #

Since Jon Jay Ray brought up the topic of leftism and Nazism I think it is worth noting that the left are not above using German victims of the Allies to promote moral relativism.

A leftist history professor of mine used the controversial CBC documentary series, The Valour and the Horror, about Allied bombing raids, to mock the old ‘imperialist’ pre-multicultural Canada and even the veterans who complained about the documentary. Canadian public schools show it as part of history classes and I know from first hand experience it has led to students comparing the Allied countries to Nazi Germany; in other words not worth preserving. It wasn’t neo-Nazis who protested the statue of ‘Bomber’ Harris but the usual gaggle of anti-British leftists.

Such attacks on Allied war policies by the left and far right are almost universally resented by patriotic right wingers in the Anglophone world - the people most likely to support preserving the white Christian character of their country. So it is hardly surprising that division is created at forums like this one when some people come across as sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on November 08, 2005, 04:30 PM | #

I am neither a holocaust denier nor a holocaust revisionist.  It makes no difference to me whether it happened, or whether it was as bad as some claim.

I am a realist.  As others here have noted, the Holocaust needs two sets of scare-quotes to be placed in its proper historical context. 

It was neither the only one, nor the worst: thus it should be described as “the” “holocaust”.

Even accepting the most exhaggerated figures promoted by the self-interested holocaust-industry promoters, I do not think that the episode deserves any special place in the annals of historical events. 

6 million Jews were killed? 

Big deal.

Throughout history, many populations have been completely and totally annhiliated.  The Jews still survive, and in fact are even stronger than they were before the events in question.

The American Indians, for example, suffered a worse and far more complete holocaust.   

The jewish holocaust is not my fault, or my problem.  Nor is it the fault or problem of my generation.  I am not guilty of the offense, (whether exhaggerated or not).  Nor are my people.

What bothers me most about the holocaust is the use to which it is being put by the holocaust industry.

I will not constrain my thoughts or my public opinions to conform with an artificial societal mandate which requires that the jewish holocaust be addressed only in a given manner.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 04:30 PM | #

Matra, good point. “Bomber” Harris has always been one of my heroes; if you’re at war with a country, the rubble needs to bounce.

Posted by Phil on November 08, 2005, 04:34 PM | #

John Ray,

I hope you wouldn’t regard a certain amount of scepticism as the sign of being a “fruitcake”. If you regard scepticism (one of the founding ideas of the enlightenment and the most western ideal) as the hallmark of a “fruitcake”, then I can only conclude that deep down your emotions overcome good judgement and reason.

Have a look at this video and make up your own mind. This video made me a sceptic not only on the official Holocaust story but on a much of 20th century history. I believe a certain amount of scepticism is healthy and in accordance with reason given how much false propoganda Governments engage in during a War. And also, given the fact that “revisionism” is against the law in most of Europe (and can get you in JAIL - even the truth is no defence), scepticism is the only rational position to take.

GW,

I think we need to impose voluntary restrictions on ourselves with regard to these posts about Nazis. JJR is of course the greatest culprit in this regard. Every third or fourth post ends up being about the Nazis. And he cannot get enough of it. But I think most of us here have had quite enough (not just of JJR’s opinions on this but of the subject generally). 

I am personally bored of the subject. Not because the subject is not interesting but because every thread on the subject ends up with the same pattern - and we just end up going round and round.

I wish we could stick more to the things that concern us in the present. And there is so much for us to blog on and keep our readers informed about. We are now at such a crucial stage in European history.

Talking endlessly about what happened in the 1930s and 1940s is completely unproductive and a waste of time and space.

Just my humble opinion.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 04:36 PM | #

Incidentally, funny story, which GW or others may remember enough to confirm.  At the first Euro election, in 1979, the Conservative candidate for North Gloucestershire (my home area) was a typical pork-barreling pro-EU agriculturist, chairman of the NFU, whose name I forget.  Against him as an anti-European independent ran Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett, who had led the “Pathfinder” bombing raids on Germany in 1943-44.  His slogan:

“Bennett knows about Europe! He bombed it flat!”

The AVM got 15,000 votes, still I think a record for a British independent in a Euro election.

Posted by Al Ross on November 08, 2005, 04:40 PM | #

During the suicidal folly of World War 2,Churchill was asked why bombing was concentrated on military and industrial targets to the exclusion of civilian ones. He replied, “Business before pleasure”.

Posted by WJG on November 08, 2005, 05:05 PM | #

Hutchinson,

After whining like a baby on multiple threads about how posters of ‘anti-semitism’ (none of whom were claiming Eichmann or Heydrich as heroes) need to be purged from this site, so as not to deter the masses, you come up with this gem:

““Bomber” Harris has always been one of my heroes”

Talk about “illiterate”, “fruitcake”, and “lowlife”, some of your earlier used adjectives for any who don’t share your views on Jew worship.  You are a non-thinking hypocrite.  Is Harris not a despicable turn-off to many of the masses you claim to court?  The writers of Mother Jones would be better allies in the cause of White survival than you.  Harris incinerated, in one day, tens of thousands of non-combatant Germans (in Dresden - a non-strategic town), intentionally, with the end of the war only 2 months away, and he has always been one of your heroes.  This is not to mention his other accomplishments.

For anyone interested here is one sample of Harris’ brave warfare against women and children:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Be warned though.  ‘Historians’ have downgraded the death toll from original estimates.  They are clearly ‘denying’ that the fire bombing ever occurred.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 05:20 PM | #

A leftist “outed” I fancy.  Ever since Karl Lueger, and including the Third Reich, anti-Semitism has been primarily a leftist fantasy, partly because it includes paranoia about bankers, a common leftist affliction.

GW, this is supposed to be a Conservative blog, at least that’s what you said you wanted.

Posted by WJG on November 08, 2005, 05:30 PM | #

You seem to be stirring the pot on this blog quite a bit.  Who really is the agent provocateur around here?  All the people you are “outing” or you?  Robispierre eventually felt the guillotine he so gladly wielded.

Posted by Matra on November 08, 2005, 05:34 PM | #

I wouldn’t go so far as to call ‘Bomber’ Harris a hero - there is certainly plenty to criticise. My point was that the Left have vilified him and allowed their hearts to bleed for German war victims in order to promote moral relativism and demoralise white Brits and Anglo-Canadians.

As to Dresden…the Nazis deified strength and ridiculed the weak as do Hitler’s present day sympathisers (usually Americans). Yet when Dresden comes up they suddenly sound like victimologists demanding pity for the poor defenceless and weak German civilians.

Posted by WJG on November 08, 2005, 05:48 PM | #

Matra,

Are we using the Nazi view of morality, in which case the Jewish genocide and Dresden are both justified or the anglo/american morality where neither are?  To pick and choose between them as Hutchinson does is where there is bald-faced hypocrisy.  I think they are both dispicable.

Even to try and better estimate the number of Jews killed is called Holocaust ‘denial’; where the Jews are concerned normal language is meaningless.  Oops, more ‘anti-semitism’.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on November 08, 2005, 05:48 PM | #

Lots of relatively arcane historical anecdotes, but they are primarily being used to obsfucate the real issue. 

Only if we acquiesce to letting others frame the issue can the holocaust be used by those who seek to promote their EG interest. 

For too long they’ve used it as shield to protect their actions, and a sword to attack their perceived opponents.

They can’t use it at all if we resist being browbeaten into granting it an undeserved historical significance.

6 million?  4 million?  12 million?  Who cares.  Get over it and stop whining.  Sometimes life ain’t fair, sometimes it is.

Posted by stari_momak on November 08, 2005, 05:53 PM | #

GW, if the last two posts don’t demonstrate the problem, there is no solution to it.

Does this sentence make sense?

Posted by friedrich braun on November 08, 2005, 06:09 PM | #

Since there is no forum for the honest discussion of the Holocaust,

Try the Revisionist Forum, you’ll see Believers and Revisionists debate aspects of the holocau$t on a daily basis.

http://revforum.yourforum.org/

Posted by stari_momak on November 08, 2005, 06:28 PM | #

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on 11/08 at 03:55 PM
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on 11/08 at 07:41 PM
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on 11/08 at 08:36 PM
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on 11/08 at 09:20 PM

That’s UTC. Subtract five hours. Shouldn’t good bourgeois bankers in Virginia be at work, or at least downing Martini’s with clients? Just askin’

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 08, 2005, 06:33 PM | #

Alas, I am no longer an haute bourgeois merchant banker, but only a petit bourgeois freelance journalist. :-(

Posted by john fitzgerald on November 08, 2005, 06:39 PM | #

Those who deride sceptics of the gas chamber story as fruitcakes are too sure of their opinions.
Saying that, understanding is also called for from the sceptics of the story. Most people don’t want to hear anything different from what they beleive, and that position should be respected.

Posted by friedrich braun on November 08, 2005, 06:52 PM | #

Most people don’t want to hear anything different from what they beleive, and that position should be respected.

Why? That’s a pretty obscurantist stance. A spirit of free inquiry thrives on challenging sacred cows and what Orwell called “smelly little orthodoxies” (the holocau$t state religion being a prime example). If we all adopted that attitude we wouldn’t have many any scientific progress.

Posted by john fitzgerald on November 08, 2005, 07:24 PM | #

I’m talking about repecting peoples beleifs and not confronting them with
a void. For many people this can be distressing.

Posted by TRI on November 08, 2005, 07:35 PM | #

Still waiting on that definition of “denial”.

Posted by jonjayray on November 08, 2005, 07:46 PM | #

Bomber Harris and Hiroshima both give me great qualms.

This is of course an old discussion and I think Martin and I have discussed it previously in another forum

But I do see both as great and unjustified evils that can only be excused as the sort of thing men do in the heat and anger of war.

Posted by jonjayray on November 08, 2005, 07:50 PM | #

David’s point that a blog should not be judged by its commenters is a good one and I hope readers see it that way too.

I think however that I would be inclined to put up a large warning to that effect somewhere—preferably in red

Posted by jonjayray on November 08, 2005, 08:02 PM | #

It is true that I post here rather a lot about Nazism—though such posts
are only a small minority of what I post here.

But the psychology of politics is after all my academic specialization and posts that deride Nazism are surely a tad different from posts that explicitly or implicitly praise it!

Posted by john rackell on November 08, 2005, 08:03 PM | #

Mr Hutchinson,
Do you want a job as a banker again - I was thinking of starting a bank in England - I believe I would have at least one very reliable customer with relatively large checking deposits.  The British Banking regulations require last time I looked minimum equity capital of 1,000,000 pounds, plus the OK from the bank of England which is dependent on having a reputable board, that is, made up of bankers.

This could be a part time position.

The purpose of the bank would be to appeal to patriotic British people, considering Barclay’s and HSBC’s woeful interference in Britain’s democratic process.

I’d email you but you don’t have one listed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2005, 08:05 PM | #

“Bomber Harris and Hiroshima both give me great qualms. [...] I do see both as great and unjustified evils [...].”

John Ray I can’t help agreeing with you completely there.  I hope that won’t offend anyone.

Posted by friedrich braun on November 08, 2005, 08:08 PM | #

Are we using the Nazi view of morality, in which case the Jewish genocide and Dresden are both justified or the anglo/american morality where neither are?  To pick and choose between them as Hutchinson does is where there is bald-faced hypocrisy.  I think they are both dispicable.

“Anglo-American morality”? Yes…Anglo-Americans have always been good at hypocritically moralizing while committing the worst, most savage and despicable types of atrocities. But hey, Anglo-Americans bloody beasts do it in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”, so what if they happen to burn alive civilians, women and little children like this: “A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: “A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.”

Oh…yeah…let’s hear it for “Anglo-American morality”

US forces ‘used chemical weapons’ during assault on city of Fallujah

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

Posted by The Mighty Mole on November 08, 2005, 08:31 PM | #

“I hope that regular readers here have by now heard and seen enough from me about 1930s Nazi propaganda to be thoroughly persuaded of how Leftist it was.”

You’re too modest. This regular reader has heard and seen enough from you on everything, now and for ever. And this regular reader will not be bothering with this blog in future unless the JQ (Johnjayray Question) is cut down to 1 or 2 posts a year, max.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 08, 2005, 08:32 PM | #

A spirit of free inquiry thrives on challenging sacred cows and what Orwell called “smelly little orthodoxies”

In this observation Friedrich is right.  Hell, all through my youthful years I had to listen to every moral outrage by the left being justified for the ultimate Marxist virtue of “challenging” supposedly preconceived ideas, ie those the left didn’t like.  If heterosexual sensibilities, rooted in instinct, have to be sacrificed on the alter of “lifestyle” and “choice” just so queers and transsexuals can feel a tiny bit equal, I don’t see why Jewish interests shouldn’t get the third degree from time to time.

But I do acknowledge that the words that really matter here are “from time to time”.  Over-exposure for the blog on this issue is counter-productive.  It is a question of balance.  I would, therefore, like to see Martin’s suggestion of a de facto moritorium on WW2 and JQ posts for a few weeks enacted.

It will be interesting to see who will give way to temptation first!

Posted by jonjayray on November 08, 2005, 08:43 PM | #

“And this regular reader will not be bothering with this blog in future unless the JQ (Johnjayray Question) is cut down to 1 or 2 posts a year, max.”

LOL

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 08, 2005, 08:56 PM | #

I have a couple of suggestions, and being in dire need of breakfast I’m going to be quick and inarticulate about it. I see in marketing what they would call three broad segments, of which no blog can appeal to more than two:

Segment 1
The sub-125 IQ, or 95% of the population. Incapable of independent abstract thought. Forget revisionism, nazism, and the more sophisticated aspects of the JQ with them, they are biologically incapable of understanding.
What even the dullest primate can instintively understand is 1) race conflict (that race exists, immigration is bad…) 2) when they are being cheated, including being lied to by the media, and possibly even 3) that Jews own the media, being a separate group might manipulate it to their advantage.
That’s as far as anyone shall ever get with them, achieving as such is good enough, and there’s tons of material to deliver to win this group over.

With this group I’d lump all the others incapable of understanding the matter from an evolutionary perspective, or in total 99% of the population at minimum.

Segment 2
Possible would-be leaders whom are as of yet relatively unfamiliar with the JQ. They can’t take too much of it or shall be driven away, yet the potential’s there.

Segment 3
Hardcore elitists like Geoff Beck, Friedrich Braun, and Wintermute whom understand the JQ exactly but dont like shutting their mouths to appeal to Segment 1, whom they perceive as laggards.

MR appeals to segments 1 and 2, it seems. Appealing to three would rip it apart, yet not doing means losing the cream, the graduates like Geoff.
IMO examination of the JQ and revisionism must take place on a specialty site or subdomain with a very specific set of starting rules for both bloggers and commentators, including 1) factual claims must be supported by evidence (weeds out the feeble or knowledgeless conspiracy buff), 2) events should be viewed from an evolutionary perspective a la MacDonald. (Nothing else will lead anywhere.)

To that end I suggest setting aside a subdomain for ppl like Geoff Beck to run a bit freer, whom bloggers on the main site can disallow approval of, otherwise this sort of talent will be lost.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 08, 2005, 09:06 PM | #

“Disavow”, not “disallow”—sorry.

Posted by Svigor on November 08, 2005, 10:31 PM | #

Tellingly, no large-scale graveyards of the supposed victims have ever been found.*

Is that rubbish that you can refute Martin?  How about you JJR?

I’ll take avoiding the question as a resounding “no.”

*I’ll settle for six million bodies worth of ash.

Posted by Svigor on November 08, 2005, 10:33 PM | #

Depends what you want GW.  Total freedom of speech is an American ideal, and by and large a leftist ideal (which they then restrict by their own edicts) rather than a British one—Pitt’s 1790s had an offense of “seditious libel” which would have covered much of the more extreme stuff on MR.

Martin, that’s some rather artful spin-doctory there…I tip my cap to you.

Posted by RobertinArabia on November 09, 2005, 12:08 AM | #

In the PC world of today I am utterly astonished that this site permits objective posts on the Jewish Question and the events of World War II.

Having been physically attacked by the enforcers of Holocaust orthodoxy, I know how dangerous it is to apply critical thought to the events in question.

I do wonder why one would condemn “Holocaust Denial” without defining it. I know no writers condemned as such who deny deportations, concentration camps, many attrocities, and some massacres. We do agree that nobody has provided a Hitler order for Jewish extermination and that the evidence for mass exterminations in gas chambers is unpersuasive.
Of course, when one comes to the conclusion that the exaggerations of German criminality have exceded some orders of magnitude, a person does come to resent the lies, the laws, and the physical assault that are PC sanctions for heresy in these matters.

Posted by Over the Top on November 09, 2005, 01:29 AM | #

the exaggerations of German criminality have exceded some orders of magnitude,

Even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that there have been no exaggerations, it does not necessarily follow, to my way of thinking, that the conduct in question was “criminal”.

On a case-by-case basis, it was no more criminal than conduct engaged in by the Allies.

Nor was it any more criminal than other acts and policies pursued by uncountable others throughout history. 

The victors retroactively make the rules, and define criminality.

Furthermore, the issue of provocation is never seriously addressed.  If it happened, maybe it was warranted.  If it happened, maybe it was justified. 

I am not saying that it was, but I don’t want to deny the simple possibility. 

In all honesty, I begin to see how and why one might lend the idea credence.

Posted by JB on November 09, 2005, 01:55 AM | #

JJRAY:
“So I think I stand with something like 98% of the Western population in regarding holocaust deniers as fruitcakes.”

are you telling us 98 % of the Western population actually studied the matter ?

re: nazism/ww2

the West and our race had very little to gain in destroying a regime that did not threaten our existence and a lot to lose by investing so much money and men into that mission especially since those who gained from its defeat were the soviet regime and the jews.
WW2 was fratricide. How was it good for us ? What good came out of the Allies’ and the USSR’s victory ?

Posted by Tom Peters on November 09, 2005, 02:21 AM | #

“There’s no question certain Holocaust claims were overblown; I think the reality is probably in the 2-4 million range, which puts Hitler below Mao, Stalin and probably Pol Pot on the list of history’s bad guys. But putting it in accurate historical perspective is one thing, denying it happened and glorifying the odious left wing Nazi regime is quite another.”

This statement is wrong.  Holocaust (with a capital H) has a specific definition which states (paraphrasing):
(a) Germans had a specific goal of exterminating Jews
(b) Around 6 milion jews were killed (i.e. at least 5.5 million by mathematical definition, but you may get away with 5-5.5 million in some circles)
(c) Gas chambers were used to exterminate jews

If any of the above statements are disputed by a person then that person is officially a Holocaust denier and may face legal action in some countries.  So that makes you, Martin, a Holocaust (capital H) denier.

Many people do not understand that to say that 5 million jews or less MAY have died is indeed Holocaust denial.  I just want to clarify this - so that people here do not get into unnecessary trouble.

For the WNs here: I personally think whether it was 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 should not make any difference to any pro-white arguments.  WW2 and all deaths associated were a great tragedy.  We have our own set of problems.  We just need to make sure that we are not slandered or associated with WW2 Nazi crimes.  We are the jews of the 1930’s - we are the victims.  If people do not understand this, then they do not understnd what is going on the world today racially.

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 03:36 AM | #

The British Banking regulations require last time I looked minimum equity capital of 1,000,000 pounds, plus the OK from the bank of England

John Rackell,

A couple of minor corrections:

In reality you would need far more than £1,000,000 for a successful application for authorisation to provide banking services in the UK.

Bank of England was replaced by the Financial Services Authority in 2001 as the regulator of Banks. Therefore an application for authorisation to provide banking services in the UK must be approved by the Financial Services Authority.

Posted by jonjayray on November 09, 2005, 03:41 AM | #

“WW2 was fratricide. How was it good for us ? What good came out of the Allies’ and the USSR’s victory”

The win was that we eventually defeated both forms of extreme socialism—Nazism and Communism

Posted by luke the drifter on November 09, 2005, 03:51 AM | #

both forms of extreme socialism—Nazism and Communism

Could I impose on you to give the briefest possible description of the difference between the two, according to your understanding?

Thank you.

Posted by TRI on November 09, 2005, 04:13 AM | #

I suppose if your ideal society is Brazil, then the defeat of Nazism was a splendid thing.

ToC: Excellent analysis! Although I think that attitudes are changing due to the abundance of good information on the net (i.e. Revisionism as a force is gaining ground), there is something to be said for a step-by-step process in awakening. Here, MR excels.

I suppose there is already one Stormfront, this blog has its own niche. As such it does an excellent job of advocating White racial interests, race reality, etc. I’m not sure how many people get turned away due to NS imagery or discussion. Probably not something you can easily measure.

The occasional house Nazi who is willing to offer up reasoned argument is useful, but should probably not be overdone. The casual reader in segment 2 can allow himself to read their writings without going nuts wondering if he is becoming some sort of crazy bedsheet wearing Neo-Nazi White Supremist (sic), since MR is not a Nazi site and the NS views aren’t given sanction.

Not sure what the answer is, but I have enjoyed MR so far, it’s very good in general.

Posted by jonjayray on November 09, 2005, 08:39 AM | #

“Could I impose on you to give the briefest possible description of the difference between the two, according to your understanding?”

Nazism was more nationalist and more popular so needed less internal repression.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 09:13 AM | #

John Rackell: your e-mauil here doesn’t work; mine is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you want to reach me.  Phil’s right about the FSA; 1 million pounds sounded low for the capital, but I don’t know what the current figure is—probably need 25-50 million these days just to pay for all the compliance bureaucrats.  Of ALL the damaging Socialist legislation passed in the last 100 years, the Financial Services Act of 1986 was about the worst.

Posted by john rackell on November 09, 2005, 11:56 AM | #

Phil, Martin - thanks for both your replies..and for not keeling over in laughter at a pie in the sky scheme - which actually may have some merit.

It seems like the magic number is 5 million euros (from a doc. at the FSA):

If the applicant institution is a UK-incorporated credit institution: at the time
authorisation is granted to it, the institution must have initial capital amounting to not
less than ecu 5mn (or an equivalent amount in another unit of account);

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/additional/bank-app-guide.pdf

with another stipulation for foreign banks of only 1 mill.

Then they mention minimum capital ratio of 8% but much more for unproved banks. After that it’s lots of stuff about proving one is responsible at handling other people’s money and are a person of probity. I am for sure but I would never convince them. The application fee is 25K GBP.

The FSA have a duty to maintain the integrity of the banking system but hopefully they’re not very political.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 12:57 PM | #

John, don’t be too sure about that.  As beneficaries of socialism and complexity, the FSA has an interest in making the system as outsider-hostile as possible.  Furthermore, if the business plan was for a WN bank, they’d undoubtedly find ways to spin the process out ad infinitum, taking self-righteous pleasure in tying you up in bureaucarcy and legal costs. The banking authorities here in the US are models of transparency by comparison.

Posted by Svigor on November 09, 2005, 12:59 PM | #

Tellingly, no large-scale graveyards of the supposed victims have ever been found.*

*I’ll settle for six million bodies worth of ash.

Martin: no
JJR: no

Thank you sirs.  So much for wingnuts.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 02:18 PM | #

Svigor, that badgering is holocaust denial, and is utterly offensive both morally and personally. I strengthen my “wingnut” to “scumbag.”  If you had ever read anyone but the lunatic Irving on the subject, you would be aware that they found mass graves and ash dumps around most of the camps when the Allies arrived there in 1945.

GW, I will NOT be badgered by Nazis any further. Kindly do something about it, or let MR float off into the lunatic fringe.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 09, 2005, 02:42 PM | #

I’ve already said here that we’ve posted enough on this topic.  I don’t think we will exhaust the subject of the Holocaust and revisionism but we have sure exhausted something.

I won’t close the thread in the event that somebody has something to offer on the banking issue which has somehow crept in here.  But I’d be grateful if readers could exercise the right to silence on the big H until one of the MR posters revisits the issue.

Thanks.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on November 09, 2005, 02:50 PM | #

Martin: Throughout history, how many peoples have been put to death by the sword?  I don’t know the exact number, but I’m sure it was more than a few.

Were the victorious armies all comprised of Nazis?  Certainly not. 

You don’t have to be a Nazi to believe that war is hell, and that your enemies should die.  The latter is particularly true if the war is defensive in nature.

To judge from their conduct, I think that the Israelis would agree with me.

Do you find these contentions to be “utterly offensive, both morally and personally”?

Or is your ire reserved, hypocritically, for avowed Nazis alone?

In condemning Svigor for questioning degrees, you undermine your own position, in that you imply, of necessity, that the severity of the alleged offense would be reduced if fewer were killed than you believe.

Contextual killing is either defensible or indefensible, regardless of the numbers.

Posted by luke the drifter on November 09, 2005, 02:52 PM | #

Sorry- I was typing my last post simultanously to GW’s post, and didn’t see the latter before posting.

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 02:54 PM | #

John Rackell,

The Banking Act has been repealed. It has been superceded by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. I can’t remember off the top of my head what the threshold for starting a bank is.

However, irrespective of what they say the threshold is, the reality is that the Financial Services Authority is unlikely to be “comfortable” with a starting capital base that is just above the threshold. Ive seen some start-up bank public offerings and we are talking about a figure somewhere in the region of £100-300 million for these.

Also, as Martin correctly points out, you will probably need to pay an absolute fortune to lawyers, accountants and the like to help you through the authorisation process and that is no joke. Fees for those guys alone could ratchet up to £5 million or higher.

Also, if you’re talking about a WN bank, forget it. The entire establishment would go apeshit (excuse my French) and find every possible loophole in the law to torpedo the application.

It would be a waste of time. Big law firms and accountancy firms may also refuse to work for you. In fact, the FSA has pushed a very pro-diversity agenda since its inception. The City of London is now lock-step behind New Labour in absolute diversity worship.

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 02:58 PM | #

Martin,

The Financial Services Act came into being in 1986 (long before I started working). So this was a legacy of Mrs Thatcher.

Any comments?

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 03:04 PM | #

Ok, I don’t want to turn this thread into a Bankers’ pub chat after work but one additional point to note.

The 8 percent capital adequacy ratio is not set in stone and the FSA has discretion to raise it also.

Now, just to add a bit of complexity, the method of calculating what is adequate capital will change completely with the implementation of the Basel II accord. The manner of measuring counterparty risk under Basel will be massively more complex than what is in place now, though perhaps infinitely more rational.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 03:29 PM | #

Phil, to answer your last point first Basel 2 is the least of one’s worries; it is basically more lenient than the 8%, and is intended to allow the big boys to leverage themselves into Armageddon with derivatives deals.

On the FS Act of 1986—(god, you are young, I left the mainstream City in 1987!)it was drafted by civil servants animated by a left-Whiggish mania for a level playing field for the City against foreign competition—sort of like Repeal of the Corn Laws. 

The City was consulted, but only those members of it who saw the chance to sell out to foreigners at huge premiums and retire with oodles of dosh. Nobody asked the REAL city, in particular Lord Cromer, largely responsible as Governor of the Bank of England in 1961-66 for inventing the Eurobond markets, and still very much around at the time (though he’d been forced out of Barings by his cousin Peter, who managed the firm into its 1995 bankruptcy.)

Together with the abolition of the Accepting Houses Committee in 1981 (by which merchant banks had been guaranteed by the B of E) the Act in reality tilted the playing field heavily towards the foreign behemoths. Merchant banks knew all about corporate finance but nothing about trading; they were forced to buy trader/brokers at silly prices. British behemoths could have competed, but the only well capitalised British competitors were the clearers, who’d never been allowed near the real business, and so were too dozy to compete.

It also introduced a nightmarish compliance bureaucracy, hugely increased back-office costs and leveled the playing field against those who’d done deals on a handshake, relying on their 200 year reputation for honesty.

It has certainly increased remuneration at the top end of the City, albeit mostly for people who would never have been allowed near the place in the old days—and at the cost of Wall Street style 90 hour weeks and forced retirement for most at 38.

It has also increased costs for issuers and the public, decreased transparency, hugely decreased integrity, and wiped out a highly valuable financial sector, the merchant banks, that had been flourishing for 200 years.

Read David Kynaston’s 4 volume “The City of London, except that being a nasty leftish academic, he FAVORS wiping out the old City.  I did a 6-parter on this subject in 2002, ostensibly a review of Kynaston, which I can’t link to as I can’t get at the UPI files—send me a private e-mail and I’ll e-mail it back to you if you like.

As you can see, a subject close to my heart!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 03:51 PM | #

GW, thank you by the way. My last but one post was made in a moment of anger TO BE AVOIDED BY DEEP BREATHING IF POSSIBLE

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 03:51 PM | #

Martin,

I am a little baby by comparison - barely out of the crib.

I have heard about the pre-1986 days, the civilized working hours and the common courtesy. What we have now is just brutal, ruthless, vulgar competition. I can barely cope with it from time to time, to be very honest with you. And the hours can absolutely kill at times (though it does go up and down and sometimes it is very civilized).

I think Basel 2 will tilt the playing field even more heavily towards the big boys. Given how many mergers we have seen in the last few years, that is appalling from a free market stand-point. We will wind up with a 10 bank global oligopoly. Can’t be healthy.

I can’t quite understand why you say the US Regulators are better. At least in the UK, we only need to worry about one. In the US they have to worry about several!

American regulation is enough to keep an army of lawyers and accountants busy for a thousand years (on current work-load alone).

Could you e-mail me the link to the e-mail that comes up when you click on my name (just below each post)?

A subject close to my heart too!

Posted by Phil on November 09, 2005, 03:56 PM | #

GW,

Sorry to turn this thread into a Bankers’ pub chat!

Posted by Svigor on November 09, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

Svigor, that badgering is holocaust denial, and is utterly offensive both morally and personally. I strengthen my “wingnut” to “scumbag.”

Coming from a spin-doctor like you I take that as a compliment.  If you don’t want to open yourself up to critique, perhaps you shouldn’t engage the subject.  I’m willing to let sleeping dogs lie; I don’t bring up this subject.  When others drag out the soapbox and posture atop it, I sigh and then join the discussion.

Since the axiom that one must erect constant caveats and repeat oneself endlessly when opposing uncritically-held orthodoxies regarding taboos holds true, even in the present educated company, here it is: I’m not a “holocaust denier.”  I’m a holocaust skeptic.  I simply smell a rat.

If you had ever read anyone but the lunatic Irving on the subject, you would be aware that they found mass graves and ash dumps around most of the camps when the Allies arrived there in 1945.

I’ve read very little Irving, only passages here and there, but as far as I know he hasn’t been refuted in any scholarly way on anything major.  Am I wrong?  Do you have a source I should review?

I had to provoke you to get even the insufficient answer you provided - can you cite sources on these mass graves or not?  I don’t need quotes or even extended citations; titles will do.

GW, I will NOT be badgered by Nazis any further. Kindly do something about it, or let MR float off into the lunatic fringe.

I’m not a nazi.  I find it hard to believe you hold degrees.  If anything I’m a racially aware American Constitutionalist.  I have no love for the NSDAP or Hitler, in fact if I could wish them both out of history I would.  Okay, I’m now bored with caveats that shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.

Posted by Svigor on November 09, 2005, 05:59 PM | #

I won’t close the thread in the event that somebody has something to offer on the banking issue which has somehow crept in here.  But I’d be grateful if readers could exercise the right to silence on the big H until one of the MR posters revisits the issue.

Sorry GW, I read and respond sequentially in parts, and only just read this.  I’m done.

Posted by Svigor on November 09, 2005, 06:09 PM | #

It is really funny being called a nazi.  I’m utterly opposed to centralized power, I despise statism, I’m ambiguous at best regarding socialism (my instinct is to oppose it and I usually go with my instincts), I seek to reconcile pan-European solidarity with individual Euro particularisms, etc.  Yep, there’s a nazi for you.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 09, 2005, 06:24 PM | #

Svigor, I refuse to spend valuable life experience researching the Holocaust.  Yes, I’m squeamish.  However this account of Belsen’s liberation from the US Holocaust Museum, which I’ve never visited, foots well with what I was taught at my father’s knee (he having seen some pretty nasty things of the kind personally, having been a Captain in British intelligence in Austria in 1945.) My father’s no leftist, nor is he Jewish. I simply have to believe that qualitatively the accounts are historiocally accurate, though having also read Franjo Tudjman on the Croatian death camps I am certainly prepared to believe the numbers may have been exaggerated—but not by all that much, I’ve known perhaps 10 unrelated people lifetime who lost relatives in the camps.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005258

And now please let’s close the discussion. I really don’t want to research this further.

Of course you’re not a Nazi, I apologise.  But in my case, silence did not imply lack of evidence, it implied distaste for the subject and apathy, and you shouldn’t have taken it otherwise.

Posted by Svigor on November 10, 2005, 05:23 PM | #

Forget it, apology accepted (I suppose the scumbag appellation stands? )

I apologize for calling you a spin-doctor (though not for saying you spin-doctored, which you did).

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 11, 2005, 03:53 AM | #

Off-topic but amusing:

http://www.jdo.org/naziweek.htm

Dr. John J. Ray officially designated as a NAZI and an anti-semite by the Jewish Defense Organiation (Control+F “John J. Ray).

Posted by RobertinArabia on November 11, 2005, 04:10 AM | #

In many European countries people are required by law to publicly adhere to the belief that a Nazi extermination camp existed at Treblinka in Poland. They are required to adhere to the belief that about 750,000 Jews were murdered in this place and then buried in mass graves. Further, they are required to adhere to the belief that the German then dug up all of the corpses and burned them and then filled in the enormous mass graves with dirt.

A search of the Internet using the terms “ground penetrating radar” and “Treblinka” will lead one to many links referring to research that shows that there are no mass graves that were dug, filled with Jewish bodies, excavated, and refilled with dirt.

The official version of Treblinka stands and falls with the existence of those graves.

Any interested Holocaust believer with a credit card has had six years to prove Holocaust “Deniers” are liars
by renting a ground penetrating radar machine and finding the missing holes.

None has done so.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 11, 2005, 10:29 AM | #

You may well be right; Treblinka was not one of the names I was brought up with as a concentration camp, so either Father/50s media were incomplete or later fabrications were added to the legend.  Certainly the 6 million number looks high, though 3-4 seems pretty solid. On an entirely non-Jewish note in this respect, I draw your attention to the Croatian camp at Jasenica, in which Tito’s communists alleged the wartime Ustashe fascist regime killed 600,000 (they didn’t allege they were all Jews; I think most of them would have been Serbs, Bosnians, gypsies and local leftists in general.) In the 1970s Franjo Tudgman, a general in the Yugoslav army who’d become a history professor at U. of Zagreb, demonstrated pretty conclusively that the true figure was about 60,000, for which he was imprisoned twice by the Communist authorities. In 1990, of course, President Tudjman won Croatia’s first free election and became the father of modern independent Croatia.

The lesson is that evil governments or private interests like Tito’s with something to prove will exaggreate the numbers involved. This may well have happened over time with the Holocaust. The contemporary information, and the discoveries in 1945 when the war ended and the Wannzee Conference and other doocumentation were NOT a Jewish conspiracy, because most of the people involved, incluidng in a very minor way may father, were not Jews.  The holocaust happened, and 3-4 million is pretty solidly supported by all the contemporary pre-spin evidence. It’s the other 2-3 that’s dubious and may be imaginary.

DAMMIT, you’ve made me talk about the Holocaust again! But I hope the Croatian info is new and, since it doesn’t involve Jews, perhaps enlightening.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 11, 2005, 10:32 AM | #

Sorry, Jasenovac not Jasenica—should have checked.

Posted by Bob on November 11, 2005, 11:47 AM | #

Dammit, I’m starting to feel like I’m being badgered by nazi-obsessives again.  I will NOT be badgered by them any further, and will take my ball and play elsewhere if someone doesn’t quickly sympathize with my plight.  Either that, or I’ll just float off into the lunatic fringe.  What’s a hypersenstive aesthete to do? Confronting my opponents is just so emotionally draining.

Posted by RobertinArabia on November 11, 2005, 02:11 PM | #

Mr. Hutchinson,
You have won my respect.
BTW, I do not intend to post further on this topic.
Watching the French regime betray its people is depressing me.
Courage!