In a recent article, so-called 'dissident' writer for the so-called 'dissident' website 'Counter-Currents.com' Spencer J. Quinn wrote The Beginners Guide to the Jewish Question, published on September 22, 2022.
I would recommend you read the article. I read, not even the first half, and felt the urge to respond, particularly to the following:
"How are white-Jewish relations today not normalized? If you ask Jonathan Greenblatt or any other spokesmen of diaspora Jewish interests, they would tell you that relations today are normalized. Diaspora Jews in America (or the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Russia, or anywhere else you may find them) are, by and large, law-abiding, patriotic, and productive citizens whose interests perfectly meld with those of their host nations. The plethora of Jewish talent makes this an even sweeter deal for whites, who benefit tremendously from the dominant Jewish presence in a myriad of fields such as medicine, law, science, business, banking, music, and entertainment.
And there is some truth to this. Yes, it is tempting for many racially-aware whites to boil the Jewish Question down to a simple Manichean dichotomy in which manipulative and tribalistic Jews prey upon innocent and noble-minded whites for reasons ranging from material gain to sexual exploitation to world dominance. The pull of Occam’s Razor is very powerful, but one shouldn’t attempt to wield it with only half the truth. Many Jews do this when they assume that salt-of-the-earth whites are only one passion play away from picking up their pitchforks and initiating pogroms, or that racially-aware whites are only one Reichstag fire away from donning swastikas and setting up gas chambers. By the same token, whites resort to the same iffy logic when they presume that all Jewish doctors who prescribe the COVID vaccine are malicious actors in the Great Replacement or that every Jewish banker who forecloses on a white person’s home after a mortgage default is trying to eradicate the white middle class.
Yet while there are positives that diaspora Jews bring to their host nations, the Jonathan Greenblatts of the world will ignore or downplay the considerable negatives. They do this through a process of what I call “selective clustering.” When a Jew accomplishes something good or great, then his Jewishness is emphasized — as if to justify the Jewish presence in a traditionally white nation. But when a Jew does something bad or heinous, then his individuality is stressed, thereby deflecting blame from Jews as a whole. (Note that today’s Jewish elites apply selective clustering to whites as well — but conversely.) They also do this through a form of crypsis, by which they profess loyalty to their host nation when in reality they are most loyal to their own diaspora.
Such a state of affairs wouldn’t be so bad except for the glaring fact that Jews are extremely overrepresented in government and in all opinion-making fields — the mainstream media, Hollywood, journalism, and academia, mostly. They also weaponize their wealth to ensure that their interests are served, often at the expense of others."
Spencer J. Quinn, "The Beginners Guide to the Jewish Question", Counter-Currents, September 22, 2022.
And there is some truth to this. Yes, it is tempting for many racially-aware whites to boil the Jewish Question down to a simple Manichean dichotomy in which manipulative and tribalistic Jews prey upon innocent and noble-minded whites for reasons ranging from material gain to sexual exploitation to world dominance. The pull of Occam’s Razor is very powerful, but one shouldn’t attempt to wield it with only half the truth. Many Jews do this when they assume that salt-of-the-earth whites are only one passion play away from picking up their pitchforks and initiating pogroms, or that racially-aware whites are only one Reichstag fire away from donning swastikas and setting up gas chambers. By the same token, whites resort to the same iffy logic when they presume that all Jewish doctors who prescribe the COVID vaccine are malicious actors in the Great Replacement or that every Jewish banker who forecloses on a white person’s home after a mortgage default is trying to eradicate the white middle class.
Yet while there are positives that diaspora Jews bring to their host nations, the Jonathan Greenblatts of the world will ignore or downplay the considerable negatives. They do this through a process of what I call “selective clustering.” When a Jew accomplishes something good or great, then his Jewishness is emphasized — as if to justify the Jewish presence in a traditionally white nation. But when a Jew does something bad or heinous, then his individuality is stressed, thereby deflecting blame from Jews as a whole. (Note that today’s Jewish elites apply selective clustering to whites as well — but conversely.) They also do this through a form of crypsis, by which they profess loyalty to their host nation when in reality they are most loyal to their own diaspora.
Such a state of affairs wouldn’t be so bad except for the glaring fact that Jews are extremely overrepresented in government and in all opinion-making fields — the mainstream media, Hollywood, journalism, and academia, mostly. They also weaponize their wealth to ensure that their interests are served, often at the expense of others."
Spencer J. Quinn, "The Beginners Guide to the Jewish Question", Counter-Currents, September 22, 2022.
To me, this just felt like a long-winded way of trying to balance Gentile/Jewish relations. And I felt that the Nationalsocialist lawyer, Dr. Hans Frank had a much simpler philosophy when it came to determining who should be in control of the society of a particular country. So I made the following comment (not verbatim, it was approved and subsequently deleted):
I think the Nationalsocialist lawyer, Hans Frank, who authored a 1600 page book on Nationalsocialist legal theory and practise provides a useful and much simpler rule of thumb for dealing with these things. He wrote:
Hans Frank, Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935), pp. 8-9.
- "Nationalsocialism considers the preservation of the life source of the nation, i.e. the promotion and safeguarding of the race as the intrinsic value of the people, to be one of the main tasks of the state. It assumes that all the creative power of a people and its ideological attitude depend on its blood composition. Through its legislation, the state must ensure that the race is safeguarded and kept pure and thus raise and maintain the German national identity.
The Nationalsocialist state has acted according to this natural law and racial necessity. The clear realisation of these values by Nationalsocialism found its terrible starting point in the low level of the moral, ethical and spiritual conditions of the past state, brought about by the influence of foreign racial elements in all areas of life.
Therefore, insofar as the state dealt with the elimination of these Jewish influences from public life through legislation, it was a measure necessary for the existence of the German people. This makes any debate with the rest of the world about this measure, its necessity, expediency, justification and effect superfluous. I would like to emphasise once again at this point that it is a question of safeguarding and maintaining the strength of the German people - and that is what we Germans have to do. It is just an impossibility that a Jew can set and apply German law, whereby the logical truth that the Jew is not German cannot be ignored. It was not out of hatred for any other race that the racial protection legislation came into being, but out of love for our own people!"
Hans Frank, Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935), pp. 8-9.
This comment was initially approved. Once it was removed, I commented the following (which was not approved for reasons I will explain after):
And what was wrong with my first comment quoting Hans Frank? Did you not agree with his 'anti-semitism'!? You're a very principled anti-fascist Greg, I'm sure your enemies will applaud you. . .
(I do not expect you to approve these comments)
(I do not expect you to approve these comments)
I had gone on to see another comment, which criticized Quinn's glorification of David Cole. The comment is as follows:
Charlie Moran
September 22, 2022 at 9:40 pm
It’s unfortunate that so much time and reading is dedicated to these issues, but the you ultimately defer to a Jew in your assessment of the Holocaust. Why not dedicate serious time to studying this issue, like reading Revisionist literature, rather than deferring to Cole?
Cole has the most heterodox position of anyone: that the Holocaust did not happen in Auschwitz but it happened in the so-called “Reinhardt camps.” Cole may be satisfied staking his position in a way that almost nobody else holds, but you would do well to study the issue rather than trust what Cole has to say about the topic.
Let’s say the Revisionists are correct (which they are). Imagine the damage you would be doing by basically endorsing the Holocaust story with your appeal to Cole. You have greater responsibility to understand this issue because of the credibility you have on these matters. If you ultimately defer to an opportunistic Jew on the question, you have not learned enough from all those other books you have cited in this article. David Cole is wrong.
This is an important question. It’s the sacred foundational myth that orients the post-war moral landscape and the position of Jews within it. If you are wrong on this issue, which I can say you are, then you are leading people in the wrong direction and seriously undermining your own project with false conclusions.
September 22, 2022 at 9:40 pm
It’s unfortunate that so much time and reading is dedicated to these issues, but the you ultimately defer to a Jew in your assessment of the Holocaust. Why not dedicate serious time to studying this issue, like reading Revisionist literature, rather than deferring to Cole?
Cole has the most heterodox position of anyone: that the Holocaust did not happen in Auschwitz but it happened in the so-called “Reinhardt camps.” Cole may be satisfied staking his position in a way that almost nobody else holds, but you would do well to study the issue rather than trust what Cole has to say about the topic.
Let’s say the Revisionists are correct (which they are). Imagine the damage you would be doing by basically endorsing the Holocaust story with your appeal to Cole. You have greater responsibility to understand this issue because of the credibility you have on these matters. If you ultimately defer to an opportunistic Jew on the question, you have not learned enough from all those other books you have cited in this article. David Cole is wrong.
This is an important question. It’s the sacred foundational myth that orients the post-war moral landscape and the position of Jews within it. If you are wrong on this issue, which I can say you are, then you are leading people in the wrong direction and seriously undermining your own project with false conclusions.
To which, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents, the well-known White Nationalist, Greg Johnson, replied back rather strangely:
Greg Johnson
September 23, 2022 at 2:21 am
David Irving and Mark Weber basically arrived at the same conclusion that Cole did.
September 23, 2022 at 2:21 am
David Irving and Mark Weber basically arrived at the same conclusion that Cole did.
After seeing this, it didn't sit right with me at all. For a dissident to simply defer to two others, and not address (or even consider) what the original commenter had said at all was, frankly, infuriating. Because, who cares what Irving, Weber think? Why should anyone, especially a dissident (who surely knows better) merely trust the opinion of two people on the basis that they 'came to the same conclusion'? Greg Johnson is not an idiot, he would know who Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno are, he would know that their views which largely affirm the Holocaust narrative are not exactly uncontroversial in dissident spheres. So why this avid, quick, and simple defence? Especially for someone who writes article, and allows articles, criticizing Jewish power to be published? There is obviously a rather speculative, and unsavoury answer to this question. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone what it is.
Anyway, my response was as follows (I do not have the name and time stamp, due to the comment being removed, I had copied it just before posting):
Also, I have to say.
At least Cole and Weber have not gone trudging through the archives for documents. Their 'conclusions' are were not come to by reason and research, the same way all these professors of Anti-White history do not suddenly come to the convenient conclusion that all Whites are evil on the basis of documentary evidence.
It's true that David Irving's handling of primary source material is unparalleled, but he is NOT a Holocaust scholar. I have observed his archival files at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, and can tell you that he does not have immense files dedicated to the Holocaust.
The people who have dealt extensively with archival material, are those like Carlo Mattogno, who is even credited by mainstream Holocaust scholars as being prolific in his discovery of primary source material gone completely unnoticed and unused by the mainstream. Though they detest his use of these sources.
In their 1400 page tome refuting the liars at the Holocaust-Controversies blog (entitled The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt": An Analysis and Refutation of the Factitious "Evidence," Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the "Holocaust Controversies" Bloggers, see a review here) Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Jurgen Graf did extensive archival research refuting the lies about these allegedly 'true' aspects of the 'Holocaust' which Weber, Irving, and Cole all believe in. Yet of course, this has never been addressed, either by the Bloggers or by the aforementioned so-called 'revisionists'. Because they're HACKS.
The funny thing about this too, is that David Irving, to this day, hosts the 'Blogger's anti-white and unscholarly book which was refuted by the revisionists on his website!
And two years ago, David Cole, the duplicitous Jew, made a few YouTube videos in which he made fun of revisionists, called them 'deniers' and 'conspiracy theorists' (funny how that happens?). A quote from one of his videos should display his crude and dishonest character:
He displayed how he was no different from any of the mainstream anti-white political "historians". He was rebutted on the revisionist CODOH forum. The result of which was Cole responding, quite loosely, but nonetheless directly to the forum with further insults and of course, no real defence of his defenceless position on history, which he clearly hopes (as does Weber and Irving) will keep them in someone's good graces. Lord knows who.
At least Cole and Weber have not gone trudging through the archives for documents. Their 'conclusions' are were not come to by reason and research, the same way all these professors of Anti-White history do not suddenly come to the convenient conclusion that all Whites are evil on the basis of documentary evidence.
It's true that David Irving's handling of primary source material is unparalleled, but he is NOT a Holocaust scholar. I have observed his archival files at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, and can tell you that he does not have immense files dedicated to the Holocaust.
The people who have dealt extensively with archival material, are those like Carlo Mattogno, who is even credited by mainstream Holocaust scholars as being prolific in his discovery of primary source material gone completely unnoticed and unused by the mainstream. Though they detest his use of these sources.
In their 1400 page tome refuting the liars at the Holocaust-Controversies blog (entitled The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt": An Analysis and Refutation of the Factitious "Evidence," Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the "Holocaust Controversies" Bloggers, see a review here) Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Jurgen Graf did extensive archival research refuting the lies about these allegedly 'true' aspects of the 'Holocaust' which Weber, Irving, and Cole all believe in. Yet of course, this has never been addressed, either by the Bloggers or by the aforementioned so-called 'revisionists'. Because they're HACKS.
The funny thing about this too, is that David Irving, to this day, hosts the 'Blogger's anti-white and unscholarly book which was refuted by the revisionists on his website!
And two years ago, David Cole, the duplicitous Jew, made a few YouTube videos in which he made fun of revisionists, called them 'deniers' and 'conspiracy theorists' (funny how that happens?). A quote from one of his videos should display his crude and dishonest character:
- "Something began to happen around 1994 and 1995. As David Irving and I began to have a much more nuanced view of things, some of the hard core deniers, predominantly Robert Faurisson, a complete crank, from France who really did not contribute terribly to revisionism. He did a few things, but he was limited by being kind of dumb. [...] Faurisson began to see that the smart ones in the circle, me and Irving and eventually Weber, the three smartest guys in the circle were moving in a different direction; and Faurisson was like (Cole doing a French accent, mocking Faurisson) "no, Faurisson will be lost to history, my legacy will be lost". And he began putting pressure on people like Bradley Smith and some of the other, less well healed revisionists, the ones who needed donations and money. Faurisson began putting pressure on them to just stop publishing new stuff (mocking again), "the debate ends with Faurisson, no holes no Holocaust". And that was Faurisson's big thing, "no holes no Holocaust", it's a stupid thing, doesn't even have anything to do with Porn. It's about the roofs of Auschwitz, holes in the roofs, and it's dumb. The "no holes no Holocaust" thing, Faurisson thought that "okay that ends the debate now", and there "should be no debate now" after Faurisson, nothing more."
He displayed how he was no different from any of the mainstream anti-white political "historians". He was rebutted on the revisionist CODOH forum. The result of which was Cole responding, quite loosely, but nonetheless directly to the forum with further insults and of course, no real defence of his defenceless position on history, which he clearly hopes (as does Weber and Irving) will keep them in someone's good graces. Lord knows who.
In a previous comment before the above, I had pointed out how Mark Weber benefited immensely from the downfall of the IHR, pocketing millions, and presiding over the destruction of revisionism. I referred to the article by Germar Rudolf entitled 'IHR: From Flagship to Millstone'. I also informed him of how, under Mark Weber's watch, the IHR was infiltrated by (probably) Jewish, or at the very least leftist 'anti-fascists' who saw the last remaining manuscripts of Leon Degrelle's final works, his planned monumental 14 volume biography of Adolf Hitler, either lost or destroyed. Of course, being a shill for the likes of Mark Weber, David Cole, and David Irving, Greg Johnson couldn't care less about these egregious actions, these blatant betrayals of historical truth, and dissident organizations/efforts.
I also briefly mentioned how David Irving took credit and bullied the historian Joseph Bellinger, who was the man to discover the evidence for Himmler's murder at the hands of the British. Whose book, 'Himmlers Tod', is still not translated into English, and is also truncated.
WHY is Greg Johnson and those who write for him, lauding such men as heroes? As dissidents? As fighters? When these men have monumentally, and pardon my French, COMPLETELY FUCKED OVER, real, honest, and truth seeking dissidents? It can only be fear, fear to commit wholly to the truth. Or, at worst and most conspiratorially, it's because they're not who they claim to be.
In response to my comments, Greg Johnson lavished me with a reply, informing me that I am now banned from commenting on Counter-Currents, because, I guess, I had the gall to question him and provide sources. . . . So much for that belief in 'coming to conclusions', presumably via evidence. He wrote:
Greg Johnson
September 23, 2022 at 3:14 am
This is the second name you have used on this thread. I am banning you from further comments. I am also deleting other attempts by revisionists who wish to hijack this thread. Save your efforts for other corners of the web.
September 23, 2022 at 3:14 am
This is the second name you have used on this thread. I am banning you from further comments. I am also deleting other attempts by revisionists who wish to hijack this thread. Save your efforts for other corners of the web.
'Hijacking'! Can you believe it? I wonder, does Greg stand by while dissidents are persecuted by the political establishment in the West? And does he agree with them when they claim that 'far right extremists' are seeking to 'hijack political discourse'? No, he doesn't. Absolutely not. He would, as would his writers, speak out vehemently against this. But clearly he agrees with this tactic of censorship in principle so-long as he can use it to bludgeon Holocaust revisionists. Obviously this rather nullifies his criticism of the political establishment if he's going to use the same flimsy and despicable justifications they do in order to silence, and ignore people who disagree with them and provide inconvenient challenges to their own narrative.
His response is disgustingly hypocritical. Pure and simple. My reply, which I knew would not be approved, was as follows:
So. You're banning me, because I disagree with you Greg? I have been following your site for 6 years, and agreed with much of what has been written, not only on political topics, but about integrity - which the enemies of White people don't have. But really, you're just the same as them, you equally lack integrity, and would rather join the ranks of the censurers' you claim to despise.
I mean, seriously? Using 'revisionist' as an epithet? I thought you valued truth? I thought reasoned conclusions could be come to on any topic no matter how controversial? Clearly this is not so.
I wonder, what was your response to the Norwegian government when they arrested you and threw you out and told you to 'save your efforts for other corners of the world'? I doubt you just sat there and took it. In-fact, I know you didn't because I agreed with how appalled you were about this incident. Yet now, after your hypocritical tirade against revisionism, you're really not any different from the Norwegian government, or any other body which represents censorship of dissident ideas. Who are you to rage against them? Hell, who are you or any of your writers, to criticize Jews? You do not uphold the morality expressed in this above article. So what does that make you? A hypocrite. And a lair. Truth and reason are NOT your bread and butter.
I think that's what pisses me off the most. Is this high and mighty attitude you display and the simpleton leftists who ban dissidents from discourse, and then call them names, who refuse to engage with anything outside their pre-approved ideology. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing. It's sickening.
I mean, seriously? Using 'revisionist' as an epithet? I thought you valued truth? I thought reasoned conclusions could be come to on any topic no matter how controversial? Clearly this is not so.
I wonder, what was your response to the Norwegian government when they arrested you and threw you out and told you to 'save your efforts for other corners of the world'? I doubt you just sat there and took it. In-fact, I know you didn't because I agreed with how appalled you were about this incident. Yet now, after your hypocritical tirade against revisionism, you're really not any different from the Norwegian government, or any other body which represents censorship of dissident ideas. Who are you to rage against them? Hell, who are you or any of your writers, to criticize Jews? You do not uphold the morality expressed in this above article. So what does that make you? A hypocrite. And a lair. Truth and reason are NOT your bread and butter.
I think that's what pisses me off the most. Is this high and mighty attitude you display and the simpleton leftists who ban dissidents from discourse, and then call them names, who refuse to engage with anything outside their pre-approved ideology. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing. It's sickening.
What more need be said? I am noticing more and more that the sphere of so-called 'dissident rightists' is filling to the brim with liars, hypocrites, and over-all political grifters. Even among those whom, until now, I had thought retained some integrity and value of the truth. Apparently not.
It all just goes to show, that even among the most hated people in society, the people who advocate for White identity and criticize Jews to some extent, there is a line that they will not cross - and that is Holocaust revisionism.
I felt that I should record this incident to blow off some steam. It's unfortunate to me that this post will probably not be seen outside of the forum, and people will keep supporting these charlatans. It's just very sad in general. I actually respected Counter-Currents, and I respected Greg Johnson and enjoyed much of the content put out by them. But after this, it will never be the same for me. I will never be able to click on one of their articles, see their books, or so much as acknowledge their names without getting this angry, sick feeling in my stomach. And it will be worse when people applaud them for their so-called commitment to telling the 'truth', when in reality they openly oppose, not just the truth, but perhaps more importantly, other people who are also dissidents cut from the same cloth as them. People who agree with them.
