12 Novels

The Trial - Franz Kafka

The Castle - Franz Kafka

Demian - Hermann Hesse

Narcissus and Goldmund - Hermann Hesse

The Call - John Hersey

Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky

With Fire and Sword - Henryk Sienkiewicz

Before the Storm - Theodor Fontane

Little Big Man - Thomas Berger

The Marriage Plot - Jeffrey Eugenides

The Tunnel - Ernesto Sabato

Young Phillip Maddison - Henry Williamson

Response to "Against David Irving’s View of Hitler" by Eric Zuesse

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/

Zuesse:

Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view… tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen.

No... The real problem of Goldhagen in relation to Palestinians isn’t tribalism or nationalism. It is IMPERIALISM. If Zionists compromised and allowed a nation-state for Palestinians, Jewish tribalism could co-exist with Palestinian tribalism. Unfortunately, Zionists are in imperialist mode and denying the right of tribalism to the Palestinians. Jewish Globalists are tribal-imperialists. Their attitude is ‘tribalism for me but not for thee’. THAT is the problem. If Jews accepted universal tribalism/nationalism, they would get along better with other nations. But even as they promote their own tribalism, they attack the tribalism of others. Jews use their influence to destroy Arab nations or sanction Iran. These Wars for Israel have led to the swamping of Europe with ‘refugees’.

Tribal-nationalism has always been defensive against imperialism. It was tribal-nationalist passions that led to wars of resistance against European and American imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria. Long live tribalism.

EU is now neo-imperialist and seeks to undermine national sovereignty and security of European nations. Resurgent nationalism says NO to this. Tribalism is anti-imperialist. Italian tribal-populists have no designs on OTHER nations. They are nationalist and, as such, opposed to demographic imperialism of those black Africans who arrive in Italy to beat up Italian men and hump Italian women.

The problem with Nazis wasn’t tribalism or nationalism. They invaded and trampled on the tribal-nationalism of other nations. Resistance against Nazi imperialism was tribal-nationalist. And resistance against Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe was also tribal-nationalist. If Nazi Germany had remained tribal-nationalist and not turned imperialist, there would have been no WWII.

What is happening in Yemen is the result of imperialism, not tribalism. It is US-Saudi-Zionist imperialism that is waging war on Yemenese struggle for deciding their own affairs and future.

Tribalist-nationalism never hurt anyone outside its borders. Tibetans and Palestinians are tribal-nationalist. They want freedom and independence for their people in their own territories. Their hopes were crushed by Han Chinese and Zionist IMPERIALISM.

Jewish Tribalism per se isn’t the problem. If Jews want to preserve their tribal culture and memory, that's all well and good. If Jews want a nation of their own, no problem.

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Jews. They must occupy even the few remaining Palestinian territory. And they use the hammer of US globo-homo-imperialism to wage Wars for Israel and pressure EU to put out to demographic imperialism that is totally altering the racial and cultural character of Europe.

Patrick Little vs Nick Fuentes — Why Fuentes is wrong and right — Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little

In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question.
Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US will remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by making the rising tide of color direct all their rage & hatred against Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should be folded, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing by the Jewish rule-book. Jews have said everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists and Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps).
So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to say that which cannot be spoken in American politics.

Another reason why Fuentes is wrong to focus so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata to the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political speeches in US history. It would resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to work up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.

But in respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews were good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy for Jews, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism. We should know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of good. It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Ttribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our sanity and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, some Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well and made ‘documentary’ films about them to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries coming from the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of reality and truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for the nonsense peddle by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi types have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to come out on the side of truth.

Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling things he said about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ craziness. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana’s territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary expose and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalist now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.

Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ of those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwizc can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who gave fabricated tales for attention or even wealth. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become such suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred story, they crave another story that fills them with a sense of certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had once been satisfied by the Big-Lie-as-Sacred-Truth. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?
Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes. Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.


Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one. On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Little veered into total nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.

If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his newfound faith. Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.

Response to "Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job" by Philip Giraldi

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/

The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.

Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.

Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.

But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)

Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.

Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. Paradoxically, this egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).

Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity --- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers --- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.

'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.

Notes on Introduction to HITLER'S WAR by David Irving

http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/

I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

Response to "What Is America's Cause in the World Today?" by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://buchanan.org/blog/what-is-americas-cause-in-the-world-today-129392

"the West is undergoing a process of secularization while the post-socialist East, de-secularization"

Not quite. Homomania is a neo-religion. It went from ‘gay rights’, meaning homos should be free to pursue their own lifestyles, to Gay Rites, a worship of homos and trannies as saints and angels.
It is a neo-religion because the ‘rainbow’ flag is a quasi-sacred symbol to the Progs. Indeed, they wave it even in support of causes or at events that are unrelated to homosexuality. It’s like their talisman-for-all-seasons-and-reasons.
So, it was waved at BLM marches and pro-'immigrant' marches. And even Donald Trump once held up a homo flag in his support of the now sacralized community. And Conservatives argue against Muslim 'refugees' on grounds of protecting precious Holy Homos from ‘terrorists’. Even many conservatives now consider Homos to be especial special, the Other Jews.

Homomania is a neo-religion. ‘Rainbow’ flag is a sacred symbol for the Progs. That is why they wave it everywhere. That is why they hang it inside and outside churches, especially Mainline ones that have lost their souls and minds. If Homomania were secular, why would it try to take over churches? It strives to be the new replacement religion. Just as whites must be replaced by New Americans and New Europeans, Christianity must be replaced by the New Faith.

People want to associate themselves with holy symbols. When the Crucifix became the holy symbol of the West, every side held it up as if to say God is on its side. So, every kingdom marches into battle with Christian symbolism. Catholics fought Protestants, with both side holding up crucifixes and flags with Christian symbols.

But Jews took over the West. Jews hate Christianity and needed a neo-spiritual symbol to lend a sense of unity and purpose to globalists, and they concocted the Holy Three: Holocaust Faith, Magic Negro, and Holy Homo. Holocaust Faith is powerful, but it’s a bummer, mostly about gloom and guilt. Not very fun. Magic Negro myth has spread world wide, especially with MLK as god, Mandela as jesus, and rappers as prophets. But not every nation has Negroes, and as such, it isn’t universally relevant.

But Homomania, that is of universal export because EVERY society has homos. That means Jews can recruit and fund homos in all nations to be their collaborationist-agents of globalism. And why wouldn’t homos take the bait? It’s a way to get easy money(from people like Soros and many NGO’s, not to mention the US government itself) and to be favored as the New Elites and holy icons of their nation. Jews promise homos in places like Ukraine, “Do our bidding, and we will make you masters of your nation, to be worshiped and obeyed.” Homos are vain enough to agree to the Faustian bargain.

Homomania is also appealing because it’s celebratory and fantastical. All those spectacles, fanfare, pageantry, and circus atmosphere. All those ‘gay pride’ parades. In our age of celebrity and hedonism, Homomania is the favorite neo-pagan cult for many people.

It is also appealing to the snobby elites because they can claim to be more ‘woke’ and more ‘evolved’ on the subject than the ‘homophobic’ hoi polloi. The fact that the ‘unwashed masses’ are more likely to be hostile or indifferent to homos is proof enough that Loving and Celebrating Homosexuality is for the Enlightened and the better kind of people. After all, the elites are always looking for subtle ways to distinguish themselves from the Masses. Since old-style aristocracy is out, the elites and would-be-elites seek certain attitudes and ’causes’ that mark them as ‘more evolved’ than the masses.

It’s no wonder that Tranny Train has become the next big thing. After all, Homomania has now spread even to many parts of the hoi polloi. So, it isn’t as special as it used to be. When even many Mormons and Evangelicals are warming up to ‘gay marriage’, it ain’t special like it used to be. But those lowlife deplorable dummies are still against Tranny-business, and that means a person is obviously ‘more evolved’ if he or she’s for trannies using whatever washroom and demanding they be called certain pronouns. New 'Progressivism' is now more about looking for new status symbols to distinguish oneself from the rabble. After all, if the rabble become 'more evolved' too on a certain issue, the elites need a new cause that sets them apart as 'even more evolved'.

All in all, the fact is Homomania was concocted by Jews. So, if you see a ‘rainbow’ flag go up anywhere, it is just another sign of imperial takeover by Jewish Globalist supremacist power. When UK embassy raises the ‘homo’ flag, it means ‘We Brits are now part of the Empire of Judea’.

Homo Symbol is very useful to Jews. If Jews raised Star of David everywhere, the world would realize that the Empire of Judea is the biggest power in the world. People would become aware of Jewish domination, and Jewish power would draw the ‘wrong’ kind of attention.

So, Jews use Homomania as the Front for their power. The Star of David hides behind the ‘rainbow’ flag.

-----------------

Power has always been cynical, but the US and the West in general once stood for sound values rooted in great traditions of Greco-Roman heritage, Christian faith, and the Enlightenment. And they balanced each other out. The wild & creative pagan tendencies toward excess & decadence were held in check by Christianity morality and spirituality. And the dogmatic and theocratic strain of religious influence was restrained by Science, Reason, and Rights.

And whatever may be said about the Cold War, the West stood for sounder principles and systems than Totalitarian Communism that was repressive and even murderous in places in USSR.

But the West that had been is no more. What is the Current West is about? Worship of Homo fecal penetration, Tranny penis-cutting, Slut Pride, Negro dongs, Rap thuggery, Celebrity & Vanity, Zionist megalomania, and nonsense terms like ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’.

Because of its great power and influence around the world, the US in its present incarnation is the most evil nation on Earth.

The Great Reversal. A Response to "Douglas Murray: Europe is committing suicide" in Hungary Journal

https://thehungaryjournal.com/2018/05/20/douglas-murray-europe-is-committing-suicide/comment-page-1/#comment-1135

A kind of reversal has happened between the West and the Rest. The Great Reversal.

There was a time when people in the Rest stayed put and minded their own business in their own world.
In contrast, the people in the West, as adventurers-businessmen-conquerors-missionaries-or-colonizers, intruded into the world of the Rest and began to take over. In some places, their colonization and replacement of natives were permanent, especially in the Americas and Australia.

Because of Western aggressions into the World of the Rest, there was growing resentment and hostility among the non-white natives. They became anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist(once they developed modern nationalist consciousness borrowed from Western political ideology). The message of the Rest to the West was 'Go Home'(back to Europe) and 'This is OUR land'. Nationalist wars of liberation against Western imperialists heated up and some were fierce & bloody and cost lots of lives. British let go of Kenya only after many bloody battles. French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria willingly.

But eventually, most imperialists and colonizers from the West retreated back to their homelands of origin. Even the well-entrenched French in Algeria went back to France despite their considerable numbers and investment in the region.

Back then, non-whites had no hope of moving to the West. Europe hardly took in foreigners, and US immigration policy was virtually all-white prior to the 1965 immigration law. So, non-whites in the World of the Rest were in nationalist mode and focused on developing and improving their own nations. This was the time when all the world thought of nationalism as the gold standard and best weapon against imperialism. The idea was that the non-whites should have sovereignty and control their own national destinies. Therefore, white imperialists and colonizers in non-white nations should return to their own nations of origin. And indeed, most European colonizers packed up things and returned to their homelands(even though many of them had been born in places like India, China, or Africa).

And in the Cold War, the two great superpowers professed to champion nationalism against imperialism. Soviets supported Vietnam and Cuba as nationalist liberation struggles against American Capitalist Imperialism. And the US supported Afghanistan and Eastern European anti-Soviet dissidents as patriotic resistances against Soviet Communist imperialist aggression. So, there was nothing worse than imperialism in world affairs. Even the US and the USSR, though hegemonic powers, claimed to be for the independence of all nations and accused the OTHER side of being imperialist and hostile to nationalist aspirations of peoples who want to be free.

So, how did all this change? One big factor was the change in immigration policy. Once the West allowed in non-white immigrants, many non-whites all around the world came to favor Global Invasion over National Defense. After all, they could instantly improve their material lot by moving from Asia, Africa, Middle East, or Latin America to the First World of the US, Canada, EU, or Australia. Why bother with the poverty, corruption, repression, or violence at home when one's life can be improved overnight by becoming an 'American', 'Englishman', 'New German', or some such? Why stick around in Pakistan when one can live much better in UK or Australia? Why remain in Nigeria, China, or India when one's material well-being can immeasurably improve by moving to Canada or Australia or Sweden?

So, Diversity-Immigration undermined patriotism among the Rest. The Rest, which had once resisted the Invasion by the West, came to support the Invasion of the Rest into the West.
So, there is now a reversal of World Migratory Policy and Trends. It is white people who are into patriotic/nationalist mode and trying to stem the Mass Invasion by the Rest into white homelands. And it is non-white peoples who are into demographic imperialist mode and trying to flood into the West to take over communities, leech off welfare, usurp institutions, and colonize white wombs(or, if non-white female, marry white men who are deemed preferable to non-white men).

The former imperialists(whites) are now in nationalist mode, and the former nationalists(non-whites) are in imperialist mode. Whites want to save their nations, and non-whites want to invade and take over white bounty of the Richer West.

And of course, Jews like George Soros push the New (dis)Order because Diversity means they get to play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, the only way a patriotic people can overthrow an alien elite is by coming together as a united folk. The reason why the Irish were ultimately able to push out the British was because Ireland was virtually entirely Irish. Irish could unite as one.
But suppose British imperialists had imported millions of non-Irish into Ireland to the point where the native Irish became only1/4 of the population. Imagine an Ireland that became 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 Africa, and 1/4 Muslim(or Hindu) under British Imperialist rule. Would the real Irish be able to make common cause with the 'New Irish' to push out the British? Of course not. The real Irish, the 'black Irish', the 'yellow Irish', and 'brown Irish' will be divided among themselves, a fact that can be exploited by the imperialists in divide-and-rule manner.
Also, why would the 'New non-white Irish' rebel against the British imperialists when it was the Empire that had allowed them to come to Ireland and enjoy better living conditions? They would most likely collaborate with the British against the native Irish. (Is it any wonder that non-whites collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists against the white native folks in the West?)
Sadly, both UK and Ireland are now in the same straits. Financially, culturally, politically, and ideologically, both are under the domination of the Empire of Judea that has duped both peoples into believing that the greatest truths are Diversity, Magic Negro, Homomania, and Shoah-Worship. In contrast, any show of genuine patriotism is 'far right' or 'neo-Nazi'. (This is all the more hilarious when Jewish supremacists compel white peoples everywhere to support the Zionist ethno-state of Israel.)

It is time that white people woke up. Their lands are being colonized and taken over by the combined force of Jewish globalist elites and non-white mass invaders. And of course, white cuck-collaborators gladly take 30 pieces of silver to destroy the White West while spouting off the usual cliches about 'racism-schmacism'.

White people must become like the Viet Cong or the FLN.