[John Friend and Carolyn Yeager discuss the recent Greg Johnson vs Andrew Anglin “debate” where the “Holocaust” and Revisionism were some of the topics discussed.
John and Carolyn then take Kevin MacDonald and Greggy to the woodshed for their failure to man-up and confront the fraudulent nature of the “holocaust industry” that the jews have placed, like a millstone, around the necks of Whites.
The Revisionists have systematically and conclusively proven that the “Holocaust” is the “hoax of the 20th century“. What stands in the way of this becoming general public knowledge is organized jewry’s stranglehold over our governments and media, etc.
Between this proven hoax and the public’s lack of awareness stand two prominent members of the White movement, who for reasons explored by Carolyn and John, make excuses for evading this fact, or worst, pretend with word play that it still “happened“.
As Carolyn and John discuss, the fraudulent “Holocaust” is central to organized jewry’s strategy of guilt tripping Whites to prevent them into moving towards White nationalism by linking it negatively to racial awareness, that then leads to “Nazism” and the inevitable “gassing of six million innocent jews“.
As such, it is essential that the White movement comes to grips with exposing the Holohoax for what it is, so that this massive psychological weapon, roadblock, can be neutralized.
Meanwhile the jews continue on with their genocidal plans to destroy the White race — KATANA.]
The Realist Report
On the Johnson vs Anglin Debate
Click the link below to John’s blog post:
Click the link below to listen the audio:
Or for a tidied up version of the audio, from Carolyn:
The realist Report Description
Published on Sep 6, 2017
On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined once again by Carolyn Yeager. Carolyn and I focus on the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson which focused on the importance and relevance of historical revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. Carolyn and I both agree that revisionism is an essential aspect of the struggle for the White race, as our historical narrative – especially as it pertains to WWII, Adolf Hitler, and the so-called “Holocaust” of “6 million Jews” – has been entirely weaponized against our people. We also address a number of other related issues in this very important podcast.
Below are relevant links for this program:
- Greg Johnson echos Kevin MacDonald in opposing ‘Holocaust revisionism’ – One must ask why – Carolyn Yeager
- Andrew Anglin And Greg Johnson Discuss The Alt Right
- My Conversation with Andrew Anglin – Greg Johnson
- Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented – John Wear
- Top Jewish leader claims entire Western world culpable for “Holocaust” – John Friend
Did you enjoy this program? Consider donating to The Realist Report to help us continue producing podcasts. Enter your email below and donate $10 now!
Voice over: You are listening to The Realist Report. And now your host, John Friend!
John: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you can find an extensive archive of these pod casts as well as other radio broadcasts I have participated in, in the past. You can also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded on the right hand side of the website, and many other useful and important links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper, and I also contribute to The Barnes Review, the bi-monthly history magazine affiliated with American Free Press. I encourage everyone listening to subscribe to both publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and The Barnes Review dot org for more details.
OK, with that said, let me introduce my special guest this evening. Carolyn Yeager is back once again to discuss a recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson. Which focuses on the importance and relevance of historical Revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. A topic Carolyn and I have addressed in the past.
Carolyn, welcome back to the program! How are you this evening?
Carolyn: I’m just fine, John. Glad to be here.
John: Yes, good! I’m glad that you could join me. You wrote an article about this debate between Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin which is over on Carolyn Yeager dot net. And I will link to it. I hope people go there and check it out. I think you have a lot of very important and good things to say about the debate. And really that’s going to be the main topic for this conversation. I will be honest, I did not listen to the entire debate. I think if you can find it on YouTube and you can also find it on, … There’s like a new alternative to YouTube from what I understand. I think it’s Bitchute, is that correct?
John: Yes. You can find it [the debate] in multiple places. You have it linked on a couple of different, …
Carolyn: Yes. I have both of them linked.
John: Yes, over on your site. If you just Google it, you can find it. It’s been all over the place. It is a pretty interesting debate. Certainly worth checking out. Again I didn’t listen to the entire thing. I listened to most of it, and I mean, frankly I’ve basically heard what both Anglin and Johnson have to say about the subject, so it really wasn’t anything, …
[Image] The many faces of Andrew Anglin.
Carolyn: And then Anglin said, afterwards, that it wasn’t supposed to be a debate, but then afterwards they started calling it a debate. But I guess that was important to him, that he didn’t feel like he was in debate. You know, he wasn’t prepared, maybe, to debate anything. You know, but they did have interestingly pretty much opposing views when it came to “Holocaust” and revisionism, which is the part that I found interesting.
John: Right. Now there was a another debate that preceded the Anglin and Johnson debate, and that was between Greg Johnson and Vox Day. And they did a debate, and it was hosted by Terry McCarthy, who also hosted the debate between Anglin and Johnson.
[Image] Vox Day vs Greg Johnson debate.
In the Johnson and Vox Day debate, was a few weeks ago, I want to say, shortly after Charlottesville. And they were kind of addressing similar topics. They were talking about National Socialists and Nazis. How important, or relevant they are, like in the pro-White, Alt-Right movement, or whatever. And I’d listened to that too, again I didn’t listen to the entire thing, but I thought that was kind of interesting. Again, I’ve heard the arguments made by Johnson and Fox Day. So again, it wasn’t really anything, …
Carolyn: I had not before. It was sort of focused on Socialism in that debate, National Socialism and what Socialism meant, how to interpret it and so on.
And I listened to it, because you mentioned it to me. But I didn’t think much of it.
John: Yeah, you know, I really didn’t either. And even the Anglin and Johnson debate, I really wasn’t that impressed with either of them. So I mean, I agreed more with Anglin, but I think I would basically just present the information and present my perspective much differently than even Anglin would. I would explain it much differently and make different points than he would, than he did in this debate. Although I think he did OK. But I think I would have just handled it much differently.
So, I think overall, I would agree with Anglin.
Carolyn: The reason they had that, … According to Anglin, and it is true, was that Anglin complained that Greg Johnson had misrepresented him in the Johnson Vox Day debate. And so he said: “Well, you come on and we’ll talk about that.” And so in a couple places that’s when Johnson asked Andrew:
“Well, how did I misrepresent you, Andrew?”
And Andrew told him. He was prepared to say that. He had a couple different things that he thought were important. But then I don’t think Anglin had thought he was prepared to debate the “Holocaust” and, or Adolf Hitler, or anything like that. So, that’s why he said what he did, because maybe he would have done a different job, if he had gone there intending to debate that.
John: Okay, I get you.
Carolyn: He said what he thought, you know, I thought he did okay. But you’re right, he didn’t have some things right.
John: Yeah, I think overall he did pretty good.
John: And again I would certainly agree with Anglin over Greg Johnson, for sure, when it comes to this issue. So with that being said, I just want to say really quickly about Greg Johnson, because I think you’re going to be much more critical of him, than I will be.
I’ve been listening to and reading Greg Johnson for a number of years. I have one of his books, and I’m forgetting the title, off the top of my head. “New Right versus Old Right” I think that’s the name of it.
[Image] New Right vs Old Right by Greg Johnson. Click image to enlarge.
John: And I think Greg Johnson is a very, very smart man. He’s very articulate. I think he makes a lot of good arguments. His book I thought was really good, although there are certain sections, that I totally disagreed with. Including the article where he talks about the “Holocaust”. And it was actually the article that was published originally on The Occidental Observer dot net. It was basically the same article he wrote for the website, that was also published in the book.
And that’s an article that I’m sure we’ll bring up and talk about here as we proceed. But the book overall, was very good. I learned a lot from it. I think he makes a very good case for, you know, pro-White interests over all.
Again, I think he’s very articulate, very intelligent. I mean, the man’s a Ph D. He’s obviously, very smart. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to Revisionism and the “Holocaust”.
So, I just want to say that. I think he’s very smart, I think he is an asset to the movement overall. I just disagree with him. Then, of course, there’s also this debate, whether, or not he’s gay. And I don’t know if he is, or not.
Carolyn: John! John! That’s a definite fact! I mean, he didn’t want to talk about it for a long time, tried to avoid it and not talk about it. But he never denied it!
Carolyn: And it was Alex Linder who was trying to get him to deny it. And he didn’t do it. He was always walking around it. So, he’s even prides himself in being able to, you know, swerve around and make his arguments and come out with what he thinks is a winning argument. No matter what. It’s not based really on that he’s got all the facts right, or the facts on his side, but he just thinks he knows how to argue. And he said that. So, I think that there’s no doubt about that. He doesn’t want to say so, but he doesn’t fight it.
John: Right. And, you know, honestly I think you’re probably right, but again it’s not something that I frankly care too much about. It is what it is.
Carolyn: Let me say that I don’t care too much about him. I could leave him alone, but I do care about, as you know, about Revisionism. And I care about World War Two history, and I care about National Socialism. And when I hear him saying the things he does, I can’t, and I don’t think we should, just say, well that’s his opinion, he can have his opinion.
Naturally, he can have his opinion. But, I wouldn’t just let it pass it by and say it doesn’t matter. He’s good on other things. I think it does matter, because, as I’m going to try to point out here, the things that he says about it are totally ridiculous! And wrong! And uneducated!
John: Sure. I agree.
Carolyn: He makes this “great” argument. He makes this argument that just flips around. But, it’s not based on facts, and therefore it shouldn’t be respected, I don’t think.
John: OK. Yeah I sort of agree with you, I mean, pretty much. Before we get into the main topic, let’s actually just address this right off the bat. This issue of Johnson being gay. Because I’ve heard you argue in the article you wrote that his homosexuality seems to influence his thinking in his pro-White stance, and everything. So, how influential is his homosexual sexual identity in all of this? Do you think it has a huge role in his overall perspective?
Carolyn: Yeah, well I’ve said so and, you know, I realized when I was writing this, that I was just being way out there with talking about him actually giving the reasons for his thinking as his homosexuality, over and over, again. I knew I was doing that, and I didn’t actually get criticized for it. You know, to my face. But I thought I would. But then I thought, this just hits me so hard in everything that he says, while I kept to the “Holocaust” Revisionism, for the most part, and somewhat with the Hitler stuff.
It just strikes me so strongly that, that is the reasoning behind it. And this is not brand new, because I’ve said these things before, but I haven’t talked about Greg Johnson for a long time. And I don’t think, in a sense it’s none of my business what Greg Johnson is doing. But when he comes out publicly with this stuff on this topic, I just feel like I got to answer this, and I’ve got to say something.
Carolyn: And there are some people who appreciate it.
John: No, definitely! I mean, every time I hear him, or Dr Kevin MacDonald, again two individuals I’ve learned a lot from, I respect. I think they’re certainly on our side, overall, but I just totally disagree with this. And I think it is a very important point. In fact, as you know, I often argue when I’m doing pod-casts when I’m writing, that the fake “Holocaust” story is the entire bedrock of this New World Order! This anti-White, White genocide agenda, jewish agenda. This is the heart of it. This is what drives all. It’s the paradigm that really shapes this and advances it. And I mean, I just don’t see how we can avoid it, if we are to confront these problems, and deal with them seriously. I don’t think that we can. And we will get into that as we, …
Carolyn: Yeah, I know you believe that John. But you’re also a very nice person, but also you are committed to the movement. You don’t want to criticize people. And I’m criticized for going out and criticizing people who some people think shouldn’t be criticized, especially Kevin MacDonald. And, you know, a couple weeks before this Johnson Anglin discussion, I wrote something* about Kevin MacDonald, which was longer than this.
[* See Carolyn’s Aug 8, 2017 blog post: “Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is ‘not important’“]
[Image] Kevin MacDonald (pic taken at the 2016 NPI conference) and his landmark book on jews, “The Culture of Critique“.
He did a radio program with that, “non jewish” jew, and a girl there asked him about the “Holocaust” and Hitler and stuff. So he answered. And I was so shocked! Just thought his answers are pretty terrible. And I wrote about him about two years ago on the same topic, because a radio program* he did.
[* See Carolyn’s Nov 16, 2015 blog post: “The Heretics’ Hour: Kevin MacDonald’s problem with Holocaust revisionism“]
So these two men, … Now, MacDonald I always respected so much and I would never have, … Well he never talked about it, that I knew of in the past. But he did on these two occasions, because he was asked! And these were both, maybe since he was retired, I don’t know if he was retired the first one, but probably. And I thought, well that’s pretty ignorant! That’s not right. And so I made a noise about it, and I’m good at doing that. [John laughs]
John: Yes, you are.
Carolyn: That’s my role, I guess. So I have those two, that kind of go together in my mind. So when this came up with Greg Johnson, I thought, well I’m going to write something about this, too. Just to be fair! [chuckling]
John: Yeah, and I think it’s totally legitimate to have these discussions and to publicly disagree with other thought leaders, in the Alt-Right, or whatever. I think that’s totally fine. I think that’s healthy, really, what we should be doing, rather than engaging in drama, or gossip, and all this other crap. If we’re going to criticize somebody, …
Carolyn: We’re just ignoring it. Mostly, people don’t want to criticize someone like Kevin MacDonald, even over his views on “Holocaust” revisionism. But, it was a big hit, a lot of conversation about it. A lot of comments, a good thread about it and so on.
Carolyn: Anyway, like you, that is my big thing. And I’ve decided even more, and more, that when it comes down to it, that’s my big thing! And so, I’m going to push it as much as I can. And I don’t have the reach those guys do, but I can certainly say what I think about the misleading things they’re saying about it.
John: Yes, exactly. So, let’s get right into it. What were your overall thoughts on the debate? What points would you make?
Carolyn: Johnson said:
“No honest revisionist claims that the “Holocaust” never happened.”
And then he says:
“Robert Faurisson claims that the “Holocaust” never happened. But only by insisting on a particular definition.”
Those are his words. He says:
“His argument is too clever by half and cannot be taken seriously.”
He kept repeating:
“We don’t have to rehabilitate the Third Reich.”
And he said:
“You can say that we are Nazis, or you can say, ‘No, we’re not Nazis’, or you can say, ‘Nazis are not evil’, but you can’t say, …”
I don’t know, whatever.
John: Well, his main argument seemed to be that the pro-White struggle and having a pro-White identity, and just the overall pro-White message is in no way related to what happened during World War Two.
Carolyn: Right. Right.
John: that was his main thing. And theoretically what he’s saying is true! I mean, the fact that White people deserve their own countries, that there’s this very blatant anti-White, agenda that’s being advanced on every single White country. We’re being forced with all this mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, forced integration, all this anti-White propaganda, etc.
This is wrong, and our cause is totally legitimate. And is in no way related to, or tied to World War Two. That’s correct in theory, but that’s not the way it works in the real world, right?
Carolyn: Yeah, and everybody is familiar with that. You know, that is just a bunch of baloney, saying that. That’s fine for us to say, but nobody pays attention to it, as you just said, in the real world. So he kept saying:
“Well we can made this wonderful argument, that this is absurd what people are saying.”
To say what they call White supremacists, or just White identists, or White activists, are Nazis. That’s just so absurd on it’s face. That’s silly. And that’s not a good argument. First of all we can just ignore that, and just go on and do our thing whatever.
He doesn’t really have an answer to it. His whole answer to all of it, is to ignore it, in what he called in his article he wrote quite a number of years ago, that caused such a stir. He was using that phrase, “To step over it”. So we just “step over” the “Holocaust” and go on our way. And say it doesn’t have anything to do with us.
John: Right. But there’s no way to. I mean, theoretically you could, if you’re talking about it again from a theoretical perspective, …
Carolyn: Andrew Anglin countered that on that show, by saying that if we say we agree with everything Hitler said and did, which he does, you know, basically expects that people are going to do. If we agree with what Hitler did, we can’t then say that we have nothing to do with him. And he says that nobody’s going to fall for that. Nobody’s going to go along with that.
And Greg is saying, well he wouldn’t say that. He didn’t say those words, but that then leads him to trying to dismiss, get us away from Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, too. Which he disagrees with. And that’s part of what the “New Right” is about, right?
John: Yeah. And from what I remember about the book, his main critique of the “Old Right” is that it was kind of brutal, and violent, and tyrannical. And I think that’s a totally distorted view of National Socialism.
Carolyn: Well it is. See now, that’s where the homosexuality comes in. That absolutely comes in there. He doesn’t like, … He was much more friendly toward Hitler and National Socialism, but he’s moved away from that, because he sees, or decided, or whatever, that this is over quite a number of years, that this is a government that could treat his group badly. And so therefore he rejects anything to do with fascism, you know, what we call fascism, or the Third Reich. He rejects it.
[Image] Heinrich Himmler talks of the problem with homosexuals in society. See: Heinrich Himmler on Homosexuality.
And to me, it’s because he’s afraid of the brutality, he’s afraid of the harshness. He doesn’t think that he could convince them that he’s a good guy and that they should leave him and his friends alone.
John: It’s almost as if he knows that he would be sort of excluded in a National Socialist type state, because he is a homosexual. And that’s kind of what motivates him. And that seems to be kind of the argument you’re making in your article. And I mean, it’s entirely valid. It certainly does seem to be sort of the case.
Carolyn: Well, I think that Greg has been so successful, financially, he takes in a lot of money. From the way I think, and the way you think, I’m pretty sure, as compared to how much money you have ever gotten, he gets a lot of money. I think he gets a lot from the homosexual community. Because, even though he was criticized for being homosexual, he wouldn’t admit to any of it. He published books by blatant homosexuals, like James O’Meara, who has been exposed on the Internet, cross-dressing, and doing a lot of weird things. Pictures and everything. And Jack Donovan, and he’s been very friendly, he was very friendly with him.
And I think he has a lot of writers. Although, I was looking at his site more recently, which I haven’t for a long time, and he’s got a lot of different people writing articles, there. I don’t know who they all are. But he had a lot of writers that I think, just from the sound of them, the way they wrote, what they wrote about, that I suspect they were homosexuals.
Now, your commenter, Tucker, thinks that I see homosexuals everywhere. I do, I guess, I may have a sensitively to them, because when I think that they are, I notice it. So, I just have my opinion, he depends a lot on the homosexual community, at least for money. And they send him a lot of money because he stands up and publishes their work, and so on.
[Image] Some of the homo imagery featured in Counter-Currents in the last 12 months. Click image to enlarge.
And he also, I don’t know so much now, but back when I was making a study of it, I noticed and pointed out that he had constantly photographs, you know, he has a picture with every little post announcement on his site. Way outnumbered photographs of men with a lot of muscles showing, and not wearing very much. Old classic pictures, [chuckling] classic paintings, and sculptures, and so on. He supposedly deals in the classics, but there’s all these men, the kind of pictures that homosexuals would like looking at. Would really love looking at. So the whole thing just all fits together. And when he would say something like, you know, let me find something that he actually said:
“It’s foolish for us to attack the enemy at their best defended points, …”
We’re now into revisionism.
“… Because we can make a case for White identity and White interests that doesn’t depend on whether or not the Nazis got it right, or wrong.”
Things like I, …
John: But I think he’s so wrong about that! Because any time you make a pro-White case, it’s inevitably going to be tied into Hitler, the Nazis and the “Holocaust”. I mean, the jews have been so successful with this fake story, it’s totally discredited any form of White identity, and they pathologize it. And it’s instantly tied in with this!
Carolyn: Yeah. And that’s why he wants to distance himself from National Socialism, and Hitler, as much as possible. And he thinks, says, that will work. But then he also said in this podcast:
“There are many things I think the National Socialists did wrong. And I do think that their plans for the Slavic east were really genocidal.”
Then he said that Plan Ost, which is on the famous Wikipedia page, was a fabrication, as far as he can tell. But he still considers the “Holocaust” a genocide against jews! Now what really gets me, and because we don’t have forever I’m going to jump to it.
In his article on his website that he wrote about the debate, he said some interesting things, and then this Ermin, … What’s his first name? Vince Irmin*, or something, who he published his book. Who wrote a book about Hitler, a kind of a friendly book about Hitler, and Greg’s company published it. He wrote a comment and said he thought Anglin was right.
* Vinson Irmin, “Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays”. Foreword by Kevin MacDonald, edited by Greg Johnson (2012). Click image to enlarge.
He said, Anglin was doing the right thing by, making fun of the “Holocaust” and so on. And Greg wrote a reply to him and he said:
“The ‘Holocaust’ is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim* that jewish suffering is more important than non-jewish suffering.”
[* “Normative” statements/claims present an account of how the world should be. The word contains the stem ‘norm’: something that should be lived up to; or that should be pursued.]
Sorry, I left out that this Irmin said that:
“The whole meaning of the ‘Holocaust’ is not genocide, but that it’s a claim of jews that their suffering, during World War Two was vastly more significant than any other suffering in history.”
Comment exchange between Johnson and Irmin. Click images to enlarge.
A very good point, which you would agree with, I’m sure. That’s really what it’s all about. They are so jealous of anybody else having any claims to having, … Then that will come up when we talk about the Poles, and the Pole’s demands now for reparations, if we get a chance to do that.
So, anyway, Greg answered that:
“The “Holocaust” is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim that jewish suffering is more important than non-jews suffering. You can drop that moral absurdity, …”
Everything, he wants to call that way.
“But there’s still a great big pile of dead jews!”
John: But is there really Carolyn?
John: No, there’s not. Exactly!
Carolyn: I mean what is a pile of, … The “Holocaust” has to be more than a pile of dead Jews! There’s piles of dead people of all kinds!
John: Exactly! There’s photos of piles of bodies that are presented to a very gullible traumatized public and were told:
“Oh! Hey look how evil the Nazis are! Look at all these dead people that died in these concentration camps!”
It’s never explained how these people died, what happened, what was going on at the time, there’s no context. It’s all very emotional and psychological exploitative propaganda, that is designed to instill and reinforce this fake narrative!
Carolyn: Right! And here is where I want to make the point that I made in the wrong place before, that he said that Andrew’s position — in this article he said this — Andrew’s position on the “Holocaust” boils down to:
“It never happened. But it should have.”
And he says this is completely indefensible. And I ask, what is “it”? Because I’m saying, my point I’m going to make here, is that you need to define what the “Holocaust” is. That’s why saying it’s a big pile of dead jews, doesn’t cut it!
And then Greg writes:
“First, to say it never happened is factually indefensible. No honest revisionist claims that the ‘Holocaust’ never happened.”
And then he says:
“Robert Faurisson, does claim this, but only by insisting on a particular definition. His argument is too clever by half, …”
[laughs] The pot calling the kettle black!
“… And cannot be taken seriously.”
Oh come on!
“Even if one grants every serious revisionist argument, what remains is ‘Holocaust’ enough for most people.”
Now this is just coming from that 2012, I think it was, long article titled, “Dealing with the “Holocaust” that he published at Occidental Observer. And MacDonald, turns out was totally in agreement with him and ends up coming out later with the very same arguments.
The Occidental Observer article (Jul 20, 2012) by Johnson titled “Dealing with the Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge. Note: the comments are not available to be viewed.
You know, the thing is Faurisson* is right. You have to have a definition for what you’re talking about! What is the “Holocaust”? You can’t talk about the “Holocaust” and then everybody talking about has a different idea what it is. And it’s just a big pile of dead jews, according to this very smart Ph. D., John! Who you say is such a smart man.
[* Robert Faurisson is one of Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholars]
Article (Aug 30, 2017) by Johnson on the “debate” with Andrew Anglin. Click image to enlarge.
John: No. I hear you. [Carolyn laughs] By the way, you’re referring to an article, and I’ve not read this article, I just found it on Counter hyphen Currents dot com. “My Conversation with Andrew Anglin”.
Carolyn: Right, right. I’ve got a link to it here.
John: I’ll link to that in this blog post, so people can go read what he has to say. It looks like it’s kind of his summary or concluding thoughts on his debate with Anglin.
John: One thing I wanted to ask you is, and Greg Johnson brought this up in the debate, he’s obviously not like an outright National Socialist, you know, he loves Hitler, etc. But, you know, he’s tries to be objective and fair and say:
“Oh well, the Nazis weren’t that bad, but they did do some things wrong.”
Carolyn, what exactly did Hitler and the Nazis do wrong? I’m trying to figure that out.
Carolyn: See, I don’t agree with that. He mentions that Operation Ost, or whatever it was called, they found some notes about it. There was kind of a plan, but they made all kinds of plans! That different people wrote out plans for the East when they took more control of it, and so on. That doesn’t mean they were ever carried [out], or they were going to be, quite in that way. And so there’s a whole lot made out of that. But then he admits that it’s a fabrication. But he thinks that still, he always says that the Nazis did things wrong. He said it in both the debate and in his article. But he can never really point out to what it is, but he thinks that they did exterminate jews! Now for him, that’s immoral.
He doesn’t say, you know, he’s supposed to be anti-jew, but that’s immoral. Well others, revisionists, say they didn’t exterminate jews and there was never a plan. Now this brings us to the definition of the “Holocaust”, which you’re very aware of, and a lot of people are, but let’s just go over real quick.
As Michael Shermer wrote in 2000, and he’s a jewish “Holocaust” apologist. He says:
“When historians talk about the “Holocaust” what they mean, is that about six million jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers.”
[Image] Michael Shermer’s book “Denying History” in which he gives a standard definition of what is the “Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge.
And then Michael Berenbaum and Deborah Lipstadt, said the same thing. So have many, many others. And that’s known to be what they insist on! The jews themselves insist on that, for the “Holocaust”. They don’t let’s you change that, take away from the six million, or say that there was no plan, or intention to kill the jews. And Deborah Lipstadt says; “they were intended to kill every jew in Europe“, and things like that, you know. They have no evidence for that.
And that’s why someone like Greg Johnson doesn’t want to bring that up. Because he knows it can be debunked. But, at the same time he wants to say that there was a “Holocaust” and the Nazis are responsible for it, and that’s why we don’t want to be associated with them, or call ourselves Nazis. That is not the reason. That is all.
[Image] Carlo Mattogno’s book “Fail: Denying History” in which he gives Shermer’s book “Denying History” a good thrashing. Click image to enlarge.
John: And that’s what’s so bizarre to me with, how a guy like Greg Johnson, this very smart man, an academic, a Ph. D. Kevin MacDonald the same thing. Richard Spencer as well. He’s kind of always pooh-poohed revisionism. He doesn’t think it’s important and relevant, at least from what I’ve heard from him in the past, in conversations I’ve had with him.
Carolyn: They all do the same thing!
John: Yeah, they all think we can “step over it”. We don’t have to address it. We can ignore it. It’s not relevant, or related to our current, …
Carolyn: And you know, I also think, I don’t want to make a fuss here, but I also think that Richard Spencer is basically homosexual. And I think there’s a problem with, now of course, Kevin isn’t, but I think there’s a problem with having so many homosexuals in the White movement, as leaders. I think there’s a problem with that personally. So, I just thought I’d bring it up, because it comes up.
John: It always does. And to my knowledge Richard Spencer is not a homosexual. That’s all I’ll say about it. I don’t think that he is. From what I understand he is married and he has a child and everything.
Carolyn: You can do that.
John: My point is, … Right, yeah. Anyways, my point is that these guys, these very smart guys, always dismiss Revisionism. They don’t think it’s important. But what’s bizarre to me is that Revisionism itself is very, very well founded, from a scholarly perspective, from an academic perspective. I mean, all of the books that have been written debunking, scientifically debunking, the “Holocaust” in virtually every single regard, every single aspect of the official “Holocaust” narrative is not true. I can confidently say that at this point. None of it is true! It’s all propaganda! It’s all, just this fake narrative!
Carolyn: And these guys avoid that! They don’t talk about it!
Carolyn: They don’t talk about it at all, and then they just say:
“Well I’m not convinced it didn’t happen.”
What kind of thing? They don’t let themselves be convinced. They won’t read anything!
John: And Johnson even argued in the debate that it’s like, “over the heads of most people” and it’s “too difficult to go through all this information”. And it’s like, no! It’s not! I mean, if you just stop and think about it and break it down.
[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 1 of 4. Click image to enlarge.
As you were kind of explaining, the basic tenets of the official “Holocaust” narrative, are; six million jews, it was done in gas chambers, largely, and it was a systematic, coordinated plan, carried out by the Nazis. All three of those assertions are easily proven to be false!
I don’t understand, … It’s clear to me that they are just afraid of this topic! They’re avoiding it, because they think it’s bad PR. I think that’s really what it boils down to.
Carolyn: I used to say that, but now I go further, and I’m pretty convinced that they don’t like Nazism. They don’t like Hitler. And I’ve given my reasons for why Greg doesn’t. But Kevin doesn’t, because he just never has. He likes Americanism. He thinks we need to be American. He doesn’t want to go there.
John: It’s too taboo I think, for MacDonald especially.
Carolyn: Yeah, yeah. I think with Kevin, he personally doesn’t like anything to do with Nazis. It personally turns him off. He doesn’t like uniforms, he doesn’t like the swastika, he doesn’t like any of that. The way they behave. I mean, he really sincerely doesn’t like it, but that means he’s not looking at it, as he supposedly looks at history, in an honest objective manner. He doesn’t want us to get involved with that. And so, that’s why they don’t want to reconstruct, or revisit the “Holocaust”, because if the “Holocaust” didn’t happen then Hitler might be rehabilitated! And that’s the one thing they don’t want. They want Hitler to be the bad guy.
Carolyn: You see, some of us don’t want that. So we’re really at odds here!
John: I totally, …
Carolyn: I can’t just ignore that and say:
“Oh well, that is okay, I still support you.”
Because, to me, what they’re doing is keeping us in this bondage to the jews. And they’re helping the jews! They don’t want to help the jews, but they think they can ignore the “Holocaust” and National Socialism, the Third Reich, and move ahead with White identity. And talking about where the jews are wrong and this won’t hurt anything. But all of them, are much more tolerant of jews as friends and in the movement then what I would be.
Richard Spencer was talking in that video I linked you in that comment I wrote, that he thinks that mixed race people can be in the White movement and if they’re mostly White they can certainly, you know, adjust if they really are for us. That we can just accept all these people.
That’s too lax for me.
John: Yep, I hear you. And by the way, the comments that you’re referring, and you mentioned Tucker who is a commenter on my website, this is from our last pod cast. So if you go back in the archives you find the most recent conversation I had with you, you can find all the comments there and kind of see what we’re talking about.
John: Yeah. I mean, to me it just doesn’t make any sense how these are obviously very smart, educated men, can just dismiss all of this scholarly research done into the “Holocaust”, by guys like Germar Rudolf, for example, who is himself a scientist and a Ph. D. Robert Faurisson and many others, countless others! Check out The Barnes Review dot org for all the most classic “Holocaust” revisionists books. They’re all for sale. They’re all worth purchasing and reading in my view.
[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 2 of 4. Click image to enlarge.
We’ve proven that this story is not true! We’ve proven it scientifically, we proven it from a very scholarly perspective. It’s really, in my view, not up for debate anymore. So it’s just a matter of these guys not taking the time to do the research, or just choosing to ignore this and downplay it! And you can’t! I mean, it’s very clear that you can’t! Try going, …
Carolyn: They don’t want that to be a part of their movement!
Carolyn: So to me, they’re dishonest about it. They won’t argue it. You know, they won’t talk, … They won’t say:
“Okay, I think this is wrong and this is why.”
They won’t argue those points. They don’t want to get into it. Because they don’t think they have a very good argument, so they just avoid it. And that I think is dishonest, and it’s not fair.
Now I came across something else at Counter-Currents, just yesterday, written by Kevin MacDonald in 2016, September. One year ago posted there, titled “The Alt-Right and the jews”. And most of it was just the usual thing that Kevin talks about with the jewish influence and how it ruling in our societies, and so on. But then he got into a little more specific things, and he said, which others have said:
“I think it’s fine that some organizations and some Alt-Right figures do not discuss jewish issues.”
Well that’s OK, but then, a few sentences later he said:
“I would love it if there could be an Alt-Right mass movement with significant jewish support.”
And then he gives some reasons why that’s probably not going to happen and why it might not work out so well. But it shows that’s just a different attitude, that he would like to see Jewish support.
[Image] Kmac’s article, “The Alt-Right and the jews” with a couple of critical comments. Click image to enlarge.
John: It’s incredible! I mean, it’s a naive attitude to think:
“Oh, maybe jews will finally be objective, like us, and realize that our message is legitimate, and righteous, and honest!”
No! The jews are never going to admit this! At least not in large numbers. There might be a couple individual jews who would maybe support the idea of a White ethnostate or, sort of go along with our perspective. But overall, the jews have made very clear as a collective racial entity, that they are very, very, and blatantly hostile to our interests, and hostile to the future prospects of our race! And, in fact, are doing everything in their power to bring about our destruction! They make this very clear. So to me it’s very naive. I don’t understand it.
Like, just one day, we are going to finally convince the jews that we have a righteous cause?
Carolyn: If they want to have some jews who they think would see it, … And here’s what he said:
“That jews would see it in their interest that White societies continue to be healthy, because that’s in the jews interests as they live there.”
You know, they don’t want them to deteriorate into all these minorities, factions, and so on then. He’s still talking about jewish interests. So jews are doing it, because it’s best for them, not because it’s in the interest of White people! Not because they identify as White, but only that they want to live in White countries and get along all right for themselves.
So that’s a totally different thing! Yes, it is very naive and it’s very much academic, I guess. You praise these guys, because their Ph D.’s, and then this is an attitude that more academics tend to have. You know, I still respect Kevin MacDonald a great deal. I mean, I’ve always liked him, but I just think that this needs to be said. And I actually hope that more people would look at all this and make comments about it and think about it.
Carolyn: I think it’s very harmful to what we’re trying to do.
John: I’ll just say publicly, I don’t know if Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Richard Spencer would even listen to this, but if they do and they’re interested in discussing this with me, I’d be more than happy to have them on. I’m sure most people listening [know that] I’m not like this very hostile interviewer. I want to hear them out. I would probably challenge them, obviously.
Carolyn: Well I don’t think they would.
John: I don’t think so.
Carolyn: I sincerely doubt very much, because they don’t want to have to explain themselves. That’s why they do it, the way they do.
John: Well, all I would say is, to a guy like him, Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Spencer, anybody else who kind of goes along with their line of thinking, that we can avoid this issue, “step over it” as Johnson argues, … If you really do think that, that’s fine I guess. I would just say don’t, to use an Alt-Right expression, don’t counter signal revisionists, people that are critically investigating the fake “Holocaust” narrative.
There’s no need to! If you’re not interested in this topic, if you don’t think it’s important, then simply avoid it! But! Don’t accept the mainstream jewish narrative in any way! Just say:
“Hey look! It’s got nothing to do with what I’m saying. White people have rights. My pro-White ideas and views have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or the “Holocaust”. I don’t care about it! That happened seventy, eighty years ago. What I’m talking about is now!”
That’s all they have to do!
John: They don’t have to go along with the fake story, they don’t have to say:
“Oh well, Hitler did do some things wrong and jews were persecuted, and murdered.”
No! Just avoid it altogether! That to me is the best approach to take, if you are going to go along with Johnson, and MacDonald, and Spencer, and these other guys.
Carolyn: Well right. I said that in that article about MacDonald and his pod-casts, and it would be okay with me, if you just said:
“I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t studied it. I don’t like to talk about it, because I, have not studied the issue.”
And then that would be it. But instead, he did give some opinions. And then he made a silly comment:
“That I’ve never seen anything that convinced me.”
Well that’s just a dumb comment!
John: He’s not looking very hard then!
Carolyn: No! [laughing] No!
[Image] Revisionist “Holocaust” books. Click image to enlarge.
John: Because, I mean, Dr MacDonald, I’ll send you multiple books, … I mean, you can find this all out on the Internet! And see, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. Johnson kept arguing that to get our message across to people in a modern context, we don’t need to rehabilitate Hitler, or the Third Reich, or National Socialism, or anything like that.
I would disagree with that! I think that from an objective, truth-seeking perspective, it’s very clear that Hitler was a very righteous and honorable man! He was the greatest political statesman in modern Western history! I think you could say that, argue that very, very convincingly from a very objective, scholarly, perspective.
Carolyn: Yes. But you would have to have all your facts and figures at hand. That is not easy, but, yeah! Sure you could! Of course you could.
John: That’s true. And also I think that he still, …
Carolyn: Johnson says that, not because he knows that, or anything, but he says that, because he doesn’t want it! He doesn’t want it to be rehabilitated! Because he doesn’t want it to return.
Carolyn: In that way, that’s exactly what the jews don’t want. The jews don’t want Hitler to be rehabilitated more than they care about the “Holocaust”. The “Holocaust” is very important to them. But they don’t want Hitler to return or anything like that! So they’re in accord with that. And that’s why they want to keep the “Holocaust” in place, so they can say:
“Look! He’s responsible for this and we can’t have him. He was a bad guy!”
John: Right, exactly, yeah.
Carolyn: I’m sorry to say, they’re not coming from an honest place. They’re not coming from an honest, scholarly place. And in truth, the whole thing is that everybody comes from what they want to happen. It’s all about power! When you come down to it, history is all, who’s in power, and it’s not what’s true. You can find a lot about truth and what’s true and have different opinions. But in the overall, it’s who’s in power and that’s what it’s going to be.
So you have to change the power. And so someone like Andrew Anglin and his way dealing with that, I’m not saying he does it the best, but that way of dealing with it is in the end, it’s necessary. Because we agree, but we could talk with other people until we were blue in the face. And if they don’t want to change the way, their views of modern life are, they’re not going to go with it.
John: Right. Well really, it’s all about who controls the narrative, and the jews have control of the narrative when it comes to pretty much every major issue of importance. All of the issues that really form our paradigms for how we understand the world, how we understand our history. It’s all a jewish narrative. It’s a jewish approved narrative that advances jewish interests and delegitimizes White interests. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about controlling the narrative. And what is sad to me is that we’ve made so much progress in countering that jewish narrative, that weaponized, jewish narrative. Certainly within the past, since I’ve been involved in this movement, anyways. I mean, think about “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”.
John: What a brilliant film! Very professionally done! Very, very powerful! Very, very moving! A great film, and it’s huge on YouTube. I mean, it’s been censored countless times. But I would venture to say that literally millions of people have seen that, and it has profoundly impacted them. It certainly did for me. And there’s many other documentaries, many other books that have been written, many other pod-casts. I mean, you’ve done a lot of work on this. I think you’ve played a huge role in rehabilitating the image of Hitler, and Nazis, and the WWII narrative, in general. And other people have as well.
Carolyn: Thank you.
John: And this work is so important! And we’ve made a lot of progress, we really have!
Carolyn: You’re right! I mean, that’s why we got to keep pushing! We’ve got to keep pushing it! I’m convinced of that now. That if I do anything, I’m going to just keep working on “Holocaust” revisionism, and also what I can do with Hitler. But mostly with this revisionism, because there is so much. I mean, it’s all been figured out, it’s all been debunked. It’s just a matter of getting people to pay attention.
[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 3 of 4. Click image to enlarge.
You know, I was talking to you about my nephew and what I noticed with him, he’s very open-minded, very nonjudgmental, willing to look at things. But he doesn’t care all that much. I can tell. I sent him some things to read and look at, and he did. And then he said:
“Well, what about this and that, …”
And he wasn’t completely convinced by it. Well, when I came to it I was, like, ready to be convinced. I mean, I wanted to be convinced, I admit that. I wanted it to not be true. Other people wanted it to be, so it was different. But he’s kind of like just, he’s more interested in the Constitution and things like that. So I’m not going to press it, but I did sent him the book, “Debating the Holocaust”, and he said he would read it.
But, you know, you can’t force this down people. It’s not really what they think is most important, so even if he was convinced to some degree, which would at least be nice, it doesn’t mean he would become like me. [laughs]
John: Right. That’s how the vast majority of people are. And that’s why controlling the narrative, controlling how information is presented, whether it’s through the media, whether it’s through our educational establishment, it’s so important. And the jew again, the jews have a total stranglehold over this! At least in the official channels. I think we’re chipping away at that and sort of eroding that. Certainly within the past ten years, or so.
But that’s really what it’s all about. Most people don’t care about World War Two! They don’t care about the “Holocaust”. They don’t care about Hitler.
John: They’re just been taught all these truly false and highly weaponized narratives about this period of our history, and they just accept it. It doesn’t mean much to them, but that’s just what they know, what they’ve been taught. And they don’t really think about it.
So could you imagine, rather than watching Schindler’s List, in seventh grade, when we were in our English class, we’re watching, you know, “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”. Which is clearly much more objective and scholarly than any of these ridiculous “Holocaust” films.
John: And people would have a much different perspective, a much different outlook on everything! On life in general.
Carolyn: They would! Absolutely! That’s just absolutely true! So, this is where it’s at. It’s a tough battle, that’s what it is. But I just think, that when it comes to revisionism, if everybody in the White activist movement would get on board with it. And would talk in favor of it, it would make a big difference. I think it would, because lots of people just never mention it, that are influential. I just think it would be good, but obviously it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.
John: I completely agree with you. and I think that, again, more advice to people that kind of go along with Johnson, and MacDonald , and others. Look at this from strictly a free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of intellectual inquiry, think about it just from that perspective. I mean, we should be able to question the “Holocaust”! We should be able to critically examine it and to entertain other ideas, other perspectives about what really happened. Just that alone, I mean, just from a free speech perspective, …
Carolyn: Well, my nephew, …
John: You don’t have to agree with it, but you should be able to say:
“Hey look, I think the “Holocaust” really did happen! but if somebody wants to question it and do research into it, I fully support them in doing that.”
You know what I mean?
Carolyn: Yeah. my nephew did say, … He looked at all these great arguments and he was like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.”
But then when I happened to bring up in passing, the laws against it in Europe, and how you couldn’t talk about it, you go to jail, he said:
“That’s one of the more convincing part of it, to me.”
John: Well, it is! It totally flies in the face of American traditions, you know, free speech, the First Amendment! It’s totally contrary to all that!
Carolyn: Yeah! Am I breaking up to you?
Carolyn: Yours is breaking up to me, but maybe that doesn’t matter.
John: Okay. No. You’ve been crystal clear this entire time.
John: Carolyn, I know we’re pretty much at the hour mark and we’re going to wrap up here in just a second. I just wanted to really emphasize the fact that this fake narrative, this fake “Holocaust” narrative, this hysterical, irrational, entirely unfounded, you know, demonization of Hitler and the Nazis. This narrative really is the bedrock of the entire New World Order agenda, the White genocide agenda, which are basically one and the same thing, right? This is so clear, so easy to demonstrate, that this is the case!
There’s a couple articles I just want to highlight and bring up here real quick. One of which was just published over at The Renegade Tribune, and it’s written by a man named, John Wear, who has actually contributed to The Barnes Review in the past, and I think The Barnes Review sells some of his books, if I’m not mistaken.
He wrote an article called “Why the Holocaust Story was Invented” and he lists a number of reasons that kind of explain the purpose of the fake “Holocaust” narrative. What agenda it’s advancing and, of course, the establishment of Israel, and the demonization of Germany, etc., There’s a number of arguments he makes. It’s very, very much worth reading. I don’t know if you caught that. I tweeted it out today.
I will also link it when I post, …
Carolyn: I read something by him, that maybe you sent to me?
John: It’s good, yeah.
Carolyn: I’m trying to remember it.
John: And this article this may be an older article, I’m not sure. I just saw it posted by Kyle Hunt at The Renegade Tribune. so it may be an article that John Wear wrote in the past, and he’s just reposting it. I know he does that often.
But it’s worth reading. it’s very good. I mean, …
Carolyn: Does he kind of hold off in certain areas, he’s not one hundred percent, or is this just in this thing I read? It seems like he was doing that. Maybe to be more acceptable, more convincing, or something? I don’t know. I can’t remember. I actually can’t remember exactly what it was. But would you say he kind of holds back a little bit, or not?
John: From what I can tell it doesn’t seem like that to me.
John: I mean, maybe you wouldn’t be as forceful as we are when we talk about these subjects, but no, he seems pretty solid to me.
And this article is very good, it’s worth reading.
And then also, I wrote an article and, you know, I’ve been harping on this issue for a number of years. And this article goes back to April 26th of 2015. And it’s actually on my old blog, my old blogspot website, which amazingly is still up right now. If you go to it, it’s John Friends blog dot blogspot dot com. [johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com]
If you go to it, Google has that warning, you know, this is restricted content, or controversial content, or whatever. You have to click, “I understand and I Will Continue”. So they’re basically kind of censoring it. But anyways, you can still find it. And again I’ll link to this article as well.
And this article is titled, “Top jewish Leader Claims Entire Western World Culpable for the Holocau$t”*. And I just highlighted an article I found in the “Algemeine”, which is a jewish newspaper. Again, people who have followed my site know I highlight jewish newspapers and just what the jews actually say, just to expose their agenda and everything that they’re about. Because again, they openly admit these things and say exactly what they’re up to.
And this article in particular, I was highlighting, some comments that were made by Ron Lauder, who I believe still is the President of the World jewish Congress.
[* http:// johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/top-jewish-leader-claims-entire-western.html]
And this was right around the time of the, …
Carolyn: Whose name did you say?
John: Ron Lauder. Ronald Lauder.
John: Yeah, he’s a big time jew that is been involved in all this stuff for a long time. Anyways, he made a speech, this was at the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. And he’s basically arguing that literally the entire Western world is essentially responsible for the “Holocaust” happening. Because they didn’t do enough to help the jews!
And it’s just so incredible some of the statements that these jews make! You know, he’s demonizing the United States for, quote, unquote:
“Shutting it’s doors to jews that were trying to flee Europe. And no one was doing enough to help the poor jews in Europe, ” etc.,
It’s just, it’s so infuriating seeing what these jews say, and just how brazen they are!
Carolyn: They’ve got such balls, they are almost like, insane! It’s almost like they’re stupid! Because they come out with stuff like. It’s not going to be accepted. And it just reinforces the idea that Jewish deaths are more important than anybody else’s! If the whole world has to stop and be responsible for what happened here, for this huge number they came up with, this six million baloney! But I mean, sometimes they are talking to jews and they don’t think the rest of us are going to be paying any attention.
John: Yeah. That is true, and most people, …
Carolyn: But I can’t see how xxx jews would like that either?
John: And that’s the thing, most people don’t ever sit down and read jewish newspapers and jewish news outlets. Which is why I try to highlight them and say:
“Hey! Look these jews are saying this, not me! You can call me an anti-Semite, and a neo-Nazi and everything else, but all I’m doing is quoting jews themselves, OK? ”
It’s amazing the Jews are so important, that to say that the whole world, even to say all Europe and all Europeans are responsible for what happened to them! And then what? What does he say? What’s supposed to be done about it?
John: Well, unlimited money, unlimited sympathy, unlimited, just acquiescence to this jewish agenda to genocide our race.
Carolyn: Well, I think they want to pass laws against anti-semitism. I think that is what they’re after.
John: Yeah. Exactly.
Carolyn: And there’s nothing worse than that! To say:
“Oh yeah, it’s illegal! You’re going to go to jail if you express anything that we consider anti-semitic.”
And they’ve got a whole, … They’re working out what anti-semitism is. There’s a whole list of stuff. I mean, it’s all kinds of stuff! It includes criticizing Israel in various ways and so, you know, it just puts them totally, outside of anybody’s control in any way, shape, or form. And they can’t be harmed, nothing can happen to them in any way. So they’re not even responsible for obeying laws, or whatever.
So, they are just showing that they really do want extraordinary privileges.
John: Privilege! They talk about White privilege all the time! It’s really jewish privilege and [for] other minorities that they’ve elevated, and used as weapons against our race!
Yes no doubt! I mean, again it’s very clear if you just read what Jews have to say and listen to what they have to say.
[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 4 of 4. Click image to enlarge.
Carolyn: I think sometimes we’re at war! That’s one thing that Hitler recognized. And people blame him for it, saying he shouldn’t have. This was a war and he couldn’t evade it. You have to go ahead and do it.
And we’re at war with these jews, and we can’t say:
“Oh well, let’s hope we can all get along! Let’s hope that some of them will be on our side.”
What? Five or six of them? [bursts out laughing]
John: Exactly! Exactly!
Carolyn: It’s just aversion for having to confront things. And of course for war, getting serious, … It’s no fun! It’s terrible! Of course we’d like to evade it! But sometimes you can’t, because you’re just going to be done in by it.
That’s probably one argument for what Hitler finally did about the jews in Germany. He went about it in such a mild way in the beginning! Just helping them out, you know, working with the Zionists that wanted to go somewhere else anyway. I don’t know, you know, … It built up, because of jews from around the world who didn’t want that to happen.
John: Yeah. Yeah again, and that’s what’s so incredible when you really have a good understanding of revisionism and all the research that’s been done to actually demonstrate that the Germans were not interested in killing jews, at all! They were interested in preserving their lives, because they wanted to use their labor in some of these labor camps.
Again, it’s like the total opposite of what we’ve been told. But again, the whole World War narrative is essentially the exact opposite of what we’ve been told!
But I wanted to also highlight one other article that I actually cite in this article that I mentioned. That’s on my blog. You can find you can find what I’m about to read there, and again I’ll link this when I post this program.
[Image] Ian Kagedan. Click image to enlarge.
There was an article written by a man named Ian Kagedan, I think is how you pronounce it. He was the former national director of the B’nai B’rth in Canada, and you wrote a very, very revealing op-ed in The Toronto Star, back in 1991. And the title of it is, get this Carolyn, I’m sure you’ve heard of this, “Memory of the Holocaust Central to New World Order”. That’s literally the title of the article, or of the op-ed.
“Central to New World Order“, right? I mean, this is the title of the article. It’s incredible! And he argues here, quote:
“The Holocau$t stands as Western civilizations greatest failure! It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism. To deny the Holocau$t is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy. Achieving our quest of a New [Jew] World Order depends on our learning the Holocau$t lessons.”
And what are the lessons of the “Holocaust”? I mean, again, this proves my point. The fake “Holocaust” narrative is literally the linchpin of the entire New World Order agenda! Which is simply a jewish plot to enslave the world, politically, economically and culturally, destroying all genuine national and racial distinctions in the process.
And the lessons of the “Holocaust”, which, of course, include “tolerance, diversity, anti-racism, multiculturalism”. The lessons of the “Holocaust” are specifically designed to erode, de-legitimizes and ultimately destroy any form of White racial identity, and to justify multiculturalism, and massive non-White immigration into the West. And to end all criticism of jews and the jewish state of Israel, and to equate it with anti-Semitism and hate speech. That’s what this is all about!
John: I mean, how could we avoid this Carolyn?
Carolyn: He makes it very clearly, doesn’t he? That’s a horrible picture! Total enslavement! You’re going to be programmed with this stuff and you’re going to believe it, or you’re on the outs. You’re somebody who’s bad, can’t exist in our societies. So you’d have to go into some bad place, or whatever.
And this is the kind of thing you have to fight! But these people will say:
“Oh! That is just that one guy. Nobody will ever fall for all that stuff!”
Well look at how much the world has fallen for it, now.
And I guess they can fall for the rest of it, if the media continues to be so controlled. I don’t want to bring this up, as I don’t want to take up any more time, but just to say real quickly, … Then there’s Trump, who is like somebody who’s, you know, standing against that, but he doesn’t have the power to overcome it. We all have to overcome it! We all have to do it. We have to say:
“God! We have to stop this!”
And that’s why people like, this is what I was going to say, but I couldn’t remember. Just this, that’s what people like MacDonald and Johnson are getting in the way of! They’re actually helping the jews in what they’re doing!
They need to be told this! They need to, … This needs to be pushed in their face, actually! I mean, rather than say:
“Oh well, we don’t want to say anything bad about them. We have to support them.”
John: Yeah, I completely with you. I would be willing to discuss this with any of them and make my opinions very clear. Not just opinions. Again, how could you, …
Carolyn: You know, I wish we could! John, here’s an idea. Somebody was talking about they’d like to have a debate with, … Mark. Mark Weber! You know Mark Weber, … Johnson got his ideas from Mark Weber, or Mark Weber helped him. Or maybe he didn’t mean to send him in that direction, altogether, but they got it from there. And they think that Mark Weber and David Irving gives them some support.
And MacDonald, I believe too, knows Mark Weber quite well. And they get those ideas from Mark Weber. And yet I just don’t think Mark Weber is so afraid of this, as they are.
Maybe we could get a conversation with Mark Weber? At one time Mark Weber wanted to talk on the phone with me, and discuss all these things. And I wouldn’t do it, because I was so in disagreement with him, and I though he was trying to make me see it his way. But I would talk to him now, but I would rather talk to him in public, on a public debate, a public forum, not necessarily a debate. And ask him some questions. I don’t know he’d be willing to do that, or not. But it just occurs to me that he might be more willing than MacDonald or Johnson would be.
John: Carolyn, I’m going to see if I can make that happen, because I actually know Mark Weber.
John: I’ll see what I can do on that front. Boy! that would be very, very interesting! [laughing]
John: Well. I’ll see what I can do. And I’ll certainly be in touch. We’re well past the hour now, but that’s okay, let’s go ahead and wrap up.
I just want to conclude by saying, I think from my perspective, which I think I could defend very well, … Objectively speaking, Hitler was in fact the greatest White leader in modern history! That’s very clear to me. I think we do need to rehabilitate his image, and I think we’ve done a good job at doing that, over the course of the past, say ten years, or whatever. Pro-White ideas and perspectives will always! Always! Always be tied to Hitler, to the Nazis, to the “Holocaust”! There’s no reason to avoid it, or to cower in fear about it! We are right! And we have the evidence and the proof to demonstrate that we’re right!
And, this is something we need to tackle head on! And if you don’t want to, if you disagree with me, don’t counter signal it! Just, avoid it! Step over it. Whatever you’ve got to do. But don’t accept this jewish nonsense about gas chambers, and jews were murdered in this and that.
[Image] Holocaust Myth Cartoon. Click image to enlarge.
It’s all bullshit! Everything the jews have to say about the “Holocaust” is utter bullshit! Designed specifically to advance jewish interests, and to delegitimize White racial interests! That is so clear, it’s so obvious, we should not even be debating this at this point.
That’s all I got to say Carolyn. Go ahead.
Carolyn: Well. I agree with you John! Good for you!
John: Thank you. [both laugh]
Well this has been fun, Carolyn. I’ll go ahead and post this up tonight, and I’ll see if I get Mark Weber to talk about this. That would be very interesting.
Carolyn: Good! Okay! Well, it’s been fun for me too! And so, I hope the listeners enjoy it. Thanks John.
John: Okay. Thank you very much! I will talk to you real soon.
John: All right. Good night.
PDF: Version 1 — Sep 21, 2017
* Total words = 12,525
* Total images = 35
* Total A4 pages = 94
Click to download a PDF of this post (6.0 MB):
Version 12: Jun 2, 2022 — Improved formatting.
Version 11: Jan 30, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.
Version 10: Sep 21, 2017 — Added PDF Version 1 for download.
Version 9: Sep 18, 2017 — Added some more links, and corrected some typos. Removed Transcript Status items. Added 1 image.
Version 8: Sep 17, 2017 — Added 15 images. Updated cover image. Expanded my intro.
Version 7: Sep 16, 2017 — Added 4 images. Proofed 15 more minutes. Total proofed = 80 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!
Version 6: Sep 14, 2017 — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.
Version 5: Sep 13, 2017 — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.
Version 4: Sep 12, 2017 — Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.
Version 3: Sep 11, 2017 — Added 1 image. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 45 mins.
Version 2: Sep 10, 2017 — Added 5 images. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 35 mins.
Version 1: Sep 9, 2017 — Published post. Total proofed = 25 mins.