The Holocaust of German people

On what used to be the Addenda of this blog, in 2014 I posted this:

The best-kept secret in modern history! Listen to Kyle Hunt’s interview of Tom Goodrich about an unheard of Holocaust concealed from the public view by those who wrote recent history.

But YouTube nuked that account since then (click on the bold-typed word above). Fortunately, there’s still the video ‘Red Ice Radio – Hellstorm: The Documentary’ about what I consider the most important subject of all: the debunking of the System’s narrative on the Second World War, as it was the Allies who committed the real Holocaust.

17 Comments

  1. Obviously the Official Narrative is mostly lies and exaggerations, you can take it as given that I broadly share your views to that extent (this is subject to my point (v) below). However I am not personally convinced that the Second World War and Holocaust revisionism is relevant to methodology.

    My reasons:

    (i). revisionism links Nationalism with something negative and destructive, and while I accept that’s banal, the association is not constructive for us. Hellstorm is a superb documentary, I take my hat off to all concerned, but ordinary people will watch it and ask themselves: ‘Will that happen to us if we become nationalists too?’;

    (ii). revisionism connects national socialism with the programmatic National Socialism of the Third Reich. It is possible to pursue a national socialist agenda completely within the mainstream without any reference to historic governments;

    (iii). revisionism erects an additional unnecessary barrier to public acceptance of a racial programme. It’s just a distraction. Our focus should be the Armalite and the ballot box, not academic inquiry;

    (iv). revisionists tend to believe that the public are largely “dumb” and unaware of the problems of Third Reich and Holocaust study. I do not believe the public are stupid (though they are stupefied to a degree, a different thing). In reality, there is a generalised awareness among ordinary people that something is not quite ‘right’, and there is a seething resentment below the surface, not at any one or group in particular, but which is ripe for exploitation. I don’t accept the public need to be ‘educated’ or ‘told’ anything, what they want is leadership and to be able to vote for Nationalists they can have confidence in: emotionally and politically; and,

    (v). finally (and this is my most controversial point), I think some Holocaust revisionism is flatly wrong or mistaken, even dishonest. While Nazi misconduct has been grossly exaggerated, it is also true that wrong was done to Jews (and other groups). These people were put in the camps against their will. That is fact and it was wrong. You can’t escape this. I personally believe it was a mistake, but even there, it’s still possible to argue that the German high command got what they deserved at Nuremberg, even allowing for the procedural abuses. In short, my point here is that morally and ethically, the Holocaust is not a winning argument for us. Even if it is all an exaggeration, we’ve still lost.

    • If you read the book without skipping any page, it would completely change your mind.

      • Which book?

      • See my response: here

    • Why is it always Englishmen, and other British-derived folk, who argue that the “Nazis” did bad b/c they put Jews in camps. (The first concentration camps to exist were built by the British to hold the White Afrikaners in South Africa.They were brutal and women and children died.)

      The English are also the ones who say the Holocaust is not a winning argument for us.

      Tom Rodgers is afraid of German National Socialism and of revisionism, probably because he knows Britain is guilty as sin of murdering white people in WWII, and also in WWI. See

      http://carolynyeager.net/britains-100-year-war-against-germany-documented

      • How is the fact that the British used camps of relevance to the fact that the Germans used camps? Don’t you see that by drawing the comparison you are almost admitting that there was something wrong?

        I’m not afraid of National Socialism. I AM a National Socialist. I’m simply making the point that the National Socialists of the Third Reich made a mistake, which was to put people in these camps against their will under circumstances in which they suffered and died. They needn’t have done that. I believe it was a mistake, rather than intentional killing, but nevertheless it was a grave mistake and the Nazi state was responsible for this, and that remains the case even if the Holocaust turns out to be a pack of lies. This has to be acknowledged. It’s fact. To believe otherwise would require us to ignore facts. Why? This is why Holocaust revisionism as a political tactic is disastrous. It’s a trap. You don’t attack your enemy at its strongest point.

        But I am not arguing against Holocaust revisionism as an academic endeavour, which of course might, if successful, have political implications, but as a political activity it is unwise, for the reasons given. You’re basically saying you think it’s OK for people in the state’s custody to be killed by the state, whether intentionally or by neglect. Can you not appreciate the problem that causes? And even if that’s not what you’re trying to say, that’s the message people will draw from it, that you think two wrongs make a right and that you are, therefore, irresponsible and not to be trusted.

        Why should I trust you with power if you think that civilians should be captured and killed or left to starve? What if you decide to target me? These are the ruminations and calculations that ordinary people will be mulling over.

      • @tomrodgers

        I said you were afraid of German National Socialism and you replied “I’m not afraid of National Socialism. I AM a National Socialist.”
        No, you are a libertarian. Do you live in the UK or the US? I think the US. In your comment above this one, you say:

        “(ii). revisionism connects national socialism with the programmatic National Socialism of the Third Reich. It is possible to pursue a national socialist agenda completely within the mainstream without any reference to historic governments;”

        This is the same error Cesar makes and all his followers on this blog. There has never been any non-Third Reich lower-case “national socialism”. This is invented so you can create your own rules for “national socialism” and still connect it, and yourself, in a generalized way to Adolf Hitler. Maybe you don’t want to connect to AH, but Cesar and his followers do.

        National Socialism IS the political program of the Third Reich and it is not possible to pursue an “ns” agenda without reference to any “historic governments.” You are just talking through your hat here and wasting everyone’s time.

        I went to your “blog” and found you are a Libertarian, not a National Socialist in any way. You don’t identify yourself or even mention the words anywhere in the very little you have published there. So it is no wonder you don’t want to identify with the Third Reich. You also wrote:

        “(v). finally (and this is my most controversial point), I think some Holocaust revisionism is flatly wrong or mistaken, even dishonest. While Nazi misconduct has been grossly exaggerated, it is also true that wrong was done to Jews (and other groups)”

        Exactly what “Holocaust revisionism” are you referring to as “wrong or dishonest”? You certainly need to be specific and very detailed in making such a statement. Anyone who has sympathy for Jews is not a National Socialist, or even a Nationalist, since Jews do not accept any nationalism other than their own.

        Regarding revisionism, historic or holocaustian, a public awareness that “something is not quite right” is not good enough for actually changing anything. But since you are really a libertarian, as is Geggy Johnson whom you copy from when you say “it was a grave mistake [to put people in these camps against their will under circumstances in which they suffered and died] and the Nazi state was responsible for this,” it is understandable.

        Something you fail to mention is that Jews lost their citizenship in the Third Reich in the ’30’s. They were asked to leave under favorable circumstances but most refused. Therefore they were eventually removed by force. Obviously you disagree with this, but there was/is no other way. This is a problem people like you and Greggy Johnson never address … because you have nothing against Jews! Thus your sympathy is with them, not with us.

        Also important is that the Africaners were defending their own nation that was under attack by British-Jewish financial interests – a very different situation than in Greater Germany where Jews were an alien enemy.

  2. @ Cesar,

    I’ve read Hellstorm already. It does not address any of my points above.

    • Did you actually read it all not skipping any word?

      • I’ve already told you: I’ve read it. I’m not against removing non-whites (including Jews) by force. What I object to here, specifically, is the idea of killing people in the custody of the state – something very specific that is dishonourable. I also point out, among other things, that the fact this happened under the Third Reich will be used against you if you try to make revisionism part of your message, and that will be the case even if it can be shown to the satisfaction of ordinary people that the Holocaust was exaggerated. Indeed, in truth, it has been long known among ordinary people that the official Holocaust doesn’t hang together. That hasn’t stopped them voting for anti-white political parties.

      • Sorry but I do not believe you. Had you read every word of it you would know by now that whatever the Germans did the Allies did something more than tenfold worse, as it was done in times of peace (esp. 1945-1947, the Holocaust on unarmed people), and far more millions of Germans were assassinated than the mythical 6M kike figure.

  3. @TomRogers

    “You don’t attack your enemy at its strongest point.”

    It’s only a strong point for the Christians. Why should a [hypothetical] Western man pity the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and cowardly prisoners of war? Even if Hitlerians had impaled them on sticks, it would’ve been justified.

    “Why should I trust you with power if you think that civilians should be captured and killed or left to starve?”

    ENEMY civilians. Why should anyone care for the enemy civilians? It’s a losing strategy. Look at Americans, they did not exterminate the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the Afghans, and they lost all the wars.

    American cuckservatives love to preach that Jews commit a genocide against the Palestinians, yet the latter have a higher birthrate than Israelis. The world is so full of Christianity-inspired cucks, you can’t even imagine anything good.

    • Well said.

    • @ adunaithethird

      But you omit to mention that Western societies ARE in the hold of secular neo-Christian ethics, and that being the case, my point stands!!

      So, if we adopt your logic, for a moment, all we’re doing is putting another barrier in our way. Look, I admire this blog and I agree 99.9999999999999% with everything said on here. I myself am a pagan. I am not a Christian.

      But when will one of you on here actually address the point I’m making? So far, all I’ve had is diversion. Let me stress again, I am a National Socialist. I am a pagan. I sympathise with the Third Reich. My observations here are to do with METHODOLOGY, in the society that exists today, with people as they are now. That is the field in which politics must be practised and we must be ruthlessly objective and confront facts. Some of you seem to be living in a Wish World. Reality doesn’t work like that. Reality has this tendency to rudely fuck you over.

      Yes, I can sit here online and say this, that and other. I can be purist online and impress you all with my knowledge of the right books. But what use is it in the real world, the world our enemies have captured and dominate?

      • So if you are above the ‘village idiot commenters’ on this blog (as you put it in another comment on another thread), tell us how the Movement is supposed to achieve success? You’ve said the Movement has failed in the past (which if we define success as securing a future for the white race I would agree it has) and that the people on this blog live in Wish World, so tell us, how will we achieve success? Do you have any idea?

        And by the way, I don’t care about communicating with the masses. The survival of the white race won’t be decided with a vote by the masses. It will be decided based on whether our species fights and breeds or not. Nature will determine the survival of the white race, not democracy, not ‘waking the masses up’. Either Whites will fight, or they will perish.

      • You are the ones who think the public are stupid. I haven’t said that. Good luck with that as a campaigning slogan. You’re on a real winner there, I’m sure.

        There isn’t a magic solution. I DO have a broad idea about how we can achieve success, a framework if you like, but you won’t listen because you’re arrogant and think you know everything. It would also require a lengthy explanation, not because it’s complicated but because you are now so deeply attached to a rigidly dogmatic approach to methodology and false ideas (such as that the public are stupid) that before we even discuss pragmatic methods, I would first need to break you down and show you that what you already think is unreal and false.

        You’re not worth the effort. I have yet to meet or encounter anybody who is. You’re all up your own arses.

      • You are the one who doesn’t want to see the obvious: that westerners in general, and the present generation of Brits in particular, are stupid. See what a British commenter of this site said about the natives in your island (here).


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: