Proposal for a mantra covering “the Holocaust” issue

If any of Bob Whitaker’s associates are reading this, please pass this on to him.

I think we need a mantra that covers “the Holocaust,” since it’s a federally mandated part of the American high school curriculum. On it’s face, “Holocaust education” is religious and not history teaching, and is thus a violation of the separation between church and state. Where’s the federally mandated curriculum on Jesus? Odin? But the Holocaust is a Jewish interested belief, and it’s taught in such a one-sided and moralistic manner as to be religious rather than historical material. It’s conceivable for a kid in a catechism class to question the divinity of Jesus or the infalilibility of the Pope; but high school kids sure aren’t supposed to ask how the Nazis cremated 6 million bodies in 2 years while experiencing fuel shortages due to a war effort.

Challenging the constitutionality of the federal mandated high school Holocaust curriculum in court is an issue just waiting for a lawyer. Any volunteers out there? it is so obviously a violation of the separation clause.

So here’s my proposed mantra:

We have freedom of religion in America, and we don’t have to bow down to the Holocaust religion.

When they deny that it’s a religion, that it’s an “established historical fact,”

Then why do you insist that people have to believe it? Are you saying that the Holocaust is open to historical inquiry?

I ran this mantra past some friends, and they all immediately got too intellectual and too deep. It’s better to stay on the surface, and say it’s a religion, and it’s a religion because you aren’t allowed to question any aspect of it. It’s like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and if you say “less than six million angels,” then you are considered an evil heretic and can be thrown in prison in Europe.

Of course, if the person insists on arguing whether the Holocaust is historical fact, then you can drop some of the real facts, such as the amazing changing Auschwitz sign and the miracle of getting rid of 6 million bodies in 2 years with no mountain of ashes or corpses, the miracle of burning all those bodies with insufficient facilities, and the impossibility of homicidal gas chambers. And then send them to

But don’t get too intellectual. Just call the Holocaust a religion and tell them you have a right to refuse to be part of this religion, which is nothing more than a cult of moral subjugation to Jews.


  1. The Jews’ massive investment in the Holocaust story makes it too difficult to tackle at this moment, and the culture has shifted to the left too much for it to matter (i.e. whilst the Holocaust fable was used and is still being used to justify certain social policies, its lack will make up nothing since such policies are now taken for granted). I think the best tactic is to downplay and attack its relevance in North American politics whenever someone brings it up, until such time that we can do more.

  2. Personally, I wouldn’t go anywhere near that. My preferred approach is to solemnly reject genocide and blood libel while politely placing the Jewish genocide in its proper context – as one of several terrible episodes of genocide in the 20th century (bombing of Dresden, rape of Nanking, the Holodomor, Pol Pot, …). Rejecting genocide allays suspicions of sympathizing with genocidal regimes while framing things in a manner conducive to discussing our own fate. Blood libel is dwelling on what peoples’ ancestors allegedly did, typically referring to the anti-semitic charge that “Jews killed Jesus”. When blood libel is splashed at me, I ask if “Jews killed Jesus” and walk things back from there.

    But the primary objective must be to change the frame and focus away from the “Holocaust(tm)”. There’s just very little to gain from this and everything to lose. The episode was a bad episode. The Third Reich’s persecution and slaughter of “the little jews” was inexcusable and I wouldn’t dare to hug that tar baby. It’s ALWAYS a bad idea to discuss it.

    For example, KMac could have spent his hour of interview discussing an ambitious and exciting new political effort. Instead, he got sidetracked into Holocaust nonsense and would have done himself better to have taken a nap instead. Talking about the Holocaust for one moment longer than it takes to change the frame is tantamount to sneaking up on the enemy, stealing his rifle, and impaling yourself in the eye with his bayonet while he stands and watches.

  3. I feel deeply displeased with the quality standards of the new contributors to this website.

    If you can’t even get the basic facts straight, (no historian ever claimed 6 million jews were exterminated in gas chambers, a share of 1/4 or the murders approximately were due to Einsatzgruppen squadrons conducting generally open shootings, for instance) any discussion on this matter is pointless.

    The Holocaust should be discussed but on the frame of the Holocaust Industry and how genocide is used to justify the political maneuvers of international jewry.

  4. I think Bradley Smith does a pretty good job of debunking many of the Holocaust myths. His challenge to get an academic to name one person who died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz is a winner, and I wish him luck with it.

    When the gas chamber myth goes the way of Jew lamp shades, and Jew soap myth, we will be making progress.

  5. In the late 1940’s, a few years after WWII, the International Red Cross estimated that between 40 thousand, and, 70 thousand Jews died in concentration camps during WWII.

    That’s a heck of a big pile of dead Jews. But, that wasn’t good enough for the Jews who had to exaggerate the number to six million.

    I don’t doubt that more Jews were killed by the Germans in the Soviet Union—particularly Jews who were Communists, and Jews who were turned over to the Germans by those people in the Soviet Union who wanted revenge for Jewish actions during Communist/Jewish rule.

  6. Holocaust denial is precisely the sort of high-risk strategy Jews would be pursuing if the roles were reversed. It’s high-risk, high reward, and a niche effort. Most of us should avoid it, and a few with the proper mental agility (and/or education) should pursue it.

    It gets old hearing people crap out their unsupported pronouncements for THE RIGHT WAY OF DOING THINGS. We’re heading toward a destination, there are many routes to any given destination.

    I don’t know anything about revisionism, so I don’t go all out over it (I think it takes an historian to really take on the subject). But I am certainly capable of creating ample “reasonable doubt” when I want to.

  7. Tom,

    What progress will we be making? We won the lampshades and soap battle, but what did we win? Did we gain credibility? Did they lose credibility? Power? Bradley Smith is a miscegenating history hobbyist who couldn’t care less if his hobby helps or hurts our struggle. People are welcome to study or discuss whatever they want to, but quibbling over precisely how many innocent women, children, and elderly folks were slaughtered like livestock is NOT going to help us win friends and influence people.

  8. Jim,

    This blog by itself will not save us. Neither will a radio show. Many of us are directly involved in street-level activism.

    Why don’t you calm down and explain what your plan is. From what I’ve heard on your show, it seems like you don’t actually have a plan. You appear to be hoping that somewhere, somehow, some military leader will rise up and enforce what is right. That’s not a plan. That’s a wish.

    You have a lot of passion and you can really fire people up when you raise awareness of the crimes you’re discussing. I hope you continue doing your show but I ask that you stop attacking other people in the movement and posting attack pieces on men like Dr. Pierce who threw everything they had into our cause.

  9. Here’s a challenge:

    You boys are pretty smart… Are you smart enough to do 50 push-ups a day?

    Follow me.

    You’ve gotten pretty good at running your mouths… Do you think you could run for office?

    Follow me.

    You’ve developed pretty good writing skills… Can you develop courage skills? Character skills?

    Follow me.

  10. Wikitopian,

    …If that really is your name, which I believe it isn’t. I’m not trying save people; I’m trying to reach people and teach people. And I’m using the so-called “media” of radio. Which means you can hear my voice, and tell that I’m genuine. You can say to yourself, “that man’s a leader, I’ll follow him.”

    You’ll say, “He ain’t asking for my money? He ain’t asking for my time? He’s strictly legal and he’s forming a posse. And shit! I bet that posse gonna whup some ass, I better fall in.”

  11. @Wiki

    I’ve read Smith’s wife is a Mexican, I haven’t seen her.

    Smith has been running advertisments in college newspapers for years challenging the gas chamber myth. So far he’s got a lot of whining out of Jew academics, but, no refutation of what he’s claiming.

    On a limited budget the guy is doing one heck of a job.

  12. Tom,

    I am under the impression that his family situation is not disputed or questioned. This site appears friendly toward him and confirms it…

    This chapter appears to be written by him and consistent with the claim…

    More importantly, he’s never claimed to be a White Advocate or even a White Nationalist. There’s not this perfect correlation between pro-White and anti-Jew that you’re assuming. It’s the same with the “Peace, not apartheid” nonsense. Why should we care? Why is it our issue or problem?

  13. Holocaust revisionism is a waste of time for White Nationalists and it is in many respects entirely counter-productive to waste time endlessly crunching a bunch of numbers from the 1940s. We ought to let the non-WNists and revisionist historians focus on this type of stuff while we move forward in trying to make more Whites aware of the racial challenges facing us right now and in to the future.

    We have much bigger issues to worry about, namely the permanent preservation and survival of the White race on the North American continent — in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter at all if 3 million Communist Jew partisans were offed by the German National Socialists instead of oft-quoted 6 million…what matters is organized Jewry is still a huge problem in contemporary times in that they are working to have Whites mass-miscegenated and/or entirely displaced in North American and elsewhere through their endless promotion of non-White mass-immigration, multiracialism/ethnodiversity, desegregation, and so on in the Jew controlled mass-media plus the hijacked American government.

  14. @Wiki

    Just about everything that Smith does is positive for White people & White western civilization. I don’t think he is perfect. But, if he were married to Sophia Loren would that make him perfect? LOL.

  15. He’s neither implicitly nor explicitly nor accidentally doing anything positive for White people. And I don’t take interracial marriage lightly. It’s the ultimate act of betrayal. I’m not going to harp on this “betrayal”, given that he never claimed to care about the fate of our people. But I don’t see how Holocaust Revisionism helps White people.

    Please explain how Holocaust Revisionism helps White people.

    I support him out of solidarity with political dissidents threatened by attempts to censor and oppress open inquiry. But that’s it.

  16. @Wiki

    Everytime the Jews start to feel the heat for any of their actions they play the Holocaust card to deflect criticism. I think you have been around enough to see that reality.

    Wiki, what you are telling me is that you are afraid to challenge a Jew or a brainwashed White over the Holocaust myths. If you can’t talk about that you can’t talk about anything in public. LOL.

  17. Then why do you insist that people have to believe it? Are you saying that the Holocaust is open to historical inquiry?

    That should read not open to historical inquiry no?

  18. My mantra for dealing with the Holocaust is: “Whatever happened in World War II happened before I was even born. Therefore none of it – Hiroshima, Dresden, the Jap internment camps – can be my responsibility.”

    Notice how the subject changes from what Jews suffered to what Japs suffered.

  19. If no American Jews died in the holocaust, why was a holocaust museum erected in the nation’s capitol before a monument was placed there to commemorate the American soldiers who died trying to stop it?
    This a good question to ask someone who is wielding the holocaust like a weapon. If it wasn’t a question it would make a good Bob Whitiker type mantra.

  20. Holocaust revisionism should not be an overriding concern of ours, but as Kievsky points out, we will be forced into responding to it, thus we need to find a consistent, simple, way to respond. This doesn’t mean we should actually become revisionists, but whenever we bring up the JQ or any scientific racialist issues our enemies will likely bring up the holocaust and the Third Reich. Given the fact that most people already associate “our types,” with these historical events, we can’t just run away from them.

    So what we do is emphasize the fact that over 60 million people were killed, 54 million of them non-jews. Why, then, should the 6 million jews be given all the airtime?

    So here’s my tentative mantra: “I’m no historian, but I do know that 60 million people were killed in WWII… they say that six million of them were jews. Are you suggesting that 6 million jews are worth more than the 54 million non-jews who were brutally murdered? Holocaust-worship is anti-gentilism!”

    Ahmadinejad using a similar strategy: watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

  21. The fact that the Holyhoax is still such a hot-button topic means that it is still important and cannot be ignored. There is progress being made. All the articles, discussions and heated arguments across the interwebs make some smart people curious who otherwise wouldn’t have been. Keep chipping away, I say. Never yield an inch, keep moving forward lads – never, never, never, … well, you know.

  22. I disagree with the standard replies here. If Holocaust deniers had a solid case, we should be actively pursuing it for it would show for instance a crucial way by which the opposition to jewry had been slandered for decades. It would greatly benefit the causes of Western ethnocentrists.

    Holocaust revisionism in an intrinsically bankrupt enterprise simply because is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

    Consider an analogy with research on race and intelligence; HBD is not fringe in the same way Holocaust revisionism is fringe. Research on race and intelligence that is friendly to hereditarian views gets published on the top scientific journals of the relevant fields. Holocaust deniers – just like evolution deniers – are forced to create their own faux journals to get their content published with an aura of academic respectability.

  23. I’m not arguing for Holocaust revisionism, but rather calling it what it is — a religious sect.

    We have freedom of religion in this country, and people are permitted to believe what they want. However, government institutions are constitutionally prohibited from endorsing a religion.

    That’s all. Fighting the high school Holocaust curriculum is a battle worth fighting.

  24. Naturalist,

    HBD doesn’t threaten jewish interests in the slightest. In fact given the right spin it helps justify jewish domination of society.

    Holocaust Revisionism undermines jewish power and calls the sainted survivors liars.

    That’s why HBD is tolerated and even occasionally promoted by jewry while Holocaust Revisionism drives jews into a hysterical rage.

  25. Mantra…..

    Anytime any Government, King, Potentate makes it ILLEGAL to dispute a fact by imprisonment or death. History has always proven that fact to be a LIE.

    Then when asked the obvious question.

    How many Jews did Hitler kill? 6 million…..and it is ILLEGAL in Western Countries to say otherwise……… that is my point.

  26. I’m no historian, but I do know that 60 million people were killed in WWII. they say that six million of them were jews. Are you suggesting that 6 million jews are worth more than the 54 million non-jews who were brutally murdered?

    I think it’s important always to use the figure of FIVE million in that sort of context. FIVE million is the figure claimed by Jewish historians (Reitlinger, Bauer, Hilberg). SIX million was, is, and always will be nothing more than propaganda.

  27. I feel deeply displeased with the quality standards of the new contributors to this website.

    If you can’t even get the basic facts straight, (no historian ever claimed 6 million jews were exterminated in gas chambers….

    That’s right, but he’s not confronting the Holocaust historians; he’s confronting the Holocaust story as presented by idios in the public school system.

  28. Naturalist doesn’t understand the enormous weight of the taboo in place to check holocaust heresy. He is reiterating the Jewish position by inferring revisionism is pseudo history or faux history because it hasn’t been legitimized by academia. I suggest Naturalist visit this website to read what happens to academics who think they can break what bradley Smith calls “El GranTabu.”
    Holocaustianity is like Lysenkoism with Red Bull.

    “It was due to Lysenko’s efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as “reactionary and decadent” and declared such thinkers to be “enemies of the Soviet people” (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again. “

  29. @OldRight

    HBD doesn’t threaten jewish interests in the slightest? How can you claim that after the decades of virulent influence of egalitarian boasian anthropology and browsing all the slander and character assassination that anti-racist Jewish organizations such as the ADL have produced on legitimate scientists?

    Vocal Jewish race realists a la Michael Hart are anomalies.


    Intelligent design proponents, HIV deniers and a host of other cranks share exactly the same accusations of academic with hunts. Social stigma in the academia is not necessarily evidence that legitimate research is being conducted but muffled due to ideological reasons.

    The ruthless academic opposition to Holocaust revisionism is understandable given 1) the poor and dishonest scholarship of its proponents 2) Jewish influence and privilege in Western Societies and the institutional mechanisms they’ve created to smash their ideological antagonists.

    Legitimate professional academicians such as Kevin Mac Donald, Phil Rushton, Hans Hermann-Hoppe and J Michael Bailey were all targeted by the egalitarian mainstream for different reasons and suffered deeply due to the politically incorrect implications of their unorthodox research. However, their battles and response to criticisms were all conducted in the arena of science under the constraints of rational inquiry.

    The main figures in the Holocaust revisionism movement are not even professional historians with the exception of Mark Weber.

  30. Robert Faurisson was a professor of semantics. Germar Rudolph was a chemistry Ph.d candidate at the Max Plank Institute. Norman Finklestein was a professor. Though not a revisionist per se, he did succeed in revising people’s perception of the holocaust. Kevin MacDonald testified for David Irving at the Irving vs Lipstadt trial. I can’t recall the name now of the German revisionist who got his history Ph.D revoked (Thies Christopherson?). Walter Lufftl was the head of a German civil engineering guild. These men may not be practicing professional historians, but they’re not “cranks” either. Mark Weber never taught history anywhere. He doesn’t have a Ph.D. He took over the IHR, ran it into the ground and then announced from atop the ruins that revisionism as an effective anti-Zionist gambit was now moribund because he can cast a wider fundraising net with straight anti-Zionism, no chaser. All you really need is common sense to see that the holocaust can’t possibly have happened the way we’ve been lead to believe by all these professorial picklesnoots riding their heavily endowed Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies Dept. carousel of revolving references. Maybe we DON”T need revisionism in the WN quiver, but let me remind you that men are in prison today simply because they cocked a snook at the received history of this hoax. Go watch re-runs of Battle Star Galactica with HW and quit demeaning these prisoners of conscience by inferring they are just “cranks.”

  31. I disagree with the standard replies here. If Holocaust deniers had a solid case, we should be actively pursuing it for it would show for instance a crucial way by which the opposition to jewry had been slandered for decades. It would greatly benefit the causes of Western ethnocentrists.

    A “solid case” would be nice, but the Revisionist case (“denier” is a propaganda term of art, designed to suggest the psychopathology of one so labeled – please avoid its (inappropriate) use in the context of discussion here) is largely one of proving a negative and one where the history of the event is in the discreditable hands of the heirs of the Show-Trial processing of the pertinent documentation. A showing that there was much prevarication and extortion and fabrication of evidence *has* been “solidly” established by courageous men and women, importantly reinforcing and completing the general revisionist historical framework of the period, wherein Judeo-Communist subversion of the West was and is active in fundamental misrepresentation of the motives of some the polities involved and in catastrophically misdirecting the policies of others.

    Holocaust revisionism in an intrinsically bankrupt enterprise simply because is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

    As to the charge of dishonesty I would strenuously object as a generalization. And I am curious as to what heretofore unpublicized discovery of a treasure trove of uncontaminated documentation has permitted someone to make sweeping statements about factual rectitude in this regard.

    Consider an analogy with research on race and intelligence; HBD is not fringe in the same way Holocaust revisionism is fringe. Research on race and intelligence that is friendly to hereditarian views gets published on the top scientific journals of the relevant fields. Holocaust deniers – just like evolution deniers – are forced to create their own faux journals to get their content published with an aura of academic respectability.

    Think of it as the Church permitting a debate over consubstantiation versus transubstantiation but not permitting discussion of the historicity of the Resurrection. Hence the necessity for a resort to heretical venues.

  32. I’ve had some success with a few Holocaustianity-believing friends by educating them about the Holodomor.
    I tell them this: “Genocide is wrong. You agree? Heard of Holodomor? No? NO?
    Well, Stalin and Jewish henchmen starved to death MILLIONS more people than the Nazis killed. —
    So, if genocide is wrong — and it’s wrong, you agree? — then HOW COME our kids, or even yourself, never heard about the Holodomor?”
    With the final zinger being — Holodomor happened BEFORE the Nazis took power and may have been part of the Nazis’ issue with Jews.
    “Was killing innocent Jews wrong? Of, course, you agree. But perhaps the Nazis were overreacting out of their own terror.”

    THEN, after I’ve let their wheels turn a bit, I suggest that we hear SO MUCH about Holocaust 24/7 in America because American Jews are using it to deflect legitimate criticisms of Jewish misbehavior. They’re using it as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card.
    “But the truth is, Whites and Jews have been genociding EACH OTHER back and forth for a century or more.”

    AND THEN, I’m finding my friends more open to hearing how open borders Mexinvasion is Jews’ method of genociding us THIS round.

    So, yeah, I DO believe it’s important for White Nationalists to talk about the Holocaust — in order to demonstrate to the poor, jewsmedia-addled Whites that, yes, Whites have sinned, but SO HAVE THEY, and we are NOT worse.

  33. The holocaust is the most tragic event in history that never happened.
    The lolocaust is the funniest thing in history that never happened.

  34. Raphael Lemkin is the name of the Polish Jew who coined the word “genocide.” He was working for the World Jewish Congress in NYC (or some other important Jewish org, IIRCC) on atrocity propaganda
    statistics for them during the war. It’s a mystery how he got into the USA, but strings were pulled and he set to work. Lt. Col. Murray C. Bernays, whose real name was Murray Cohen (he took his wife’s name when he married Edward Bernays’ sister), used Lemkins’ Jewish “genocide” idea to come up with his own “crimes against humanity” case against the Nazis at Nuremberg. Bernays was Jewish, too, as were 2,400 of the 3,000 people employed on the staff at Nuremburg according to the Hungarian journalist Louis Marshalko. Half The Frankfurt School were there working for the OSS. If you want to read more about the origins of very idea of genocide get this book:
    If you want to find out more about the Judeo-Bolshevik Purim fest that was Nuremburg get this one:

    Knock knock
    Whose there?
    Guess who?
    Gestapo! We’d like to ask you a few questions about the bank failure in Berlin and your black market activities here in Amsterdam, Mr. Frank.

    Q. What’s the difference between a holocaust conference in Tehran
    and Burning Man?
    A. A lot.

  35. An interesting discussion. For the purpose of persuading people towards White Nationalism, the Holocaust is really a loser of a topic. It is so incredibly deeply ingrained in the culture, a topic of hundreds of movies and books, that you will have people thinking you are an absolute raving lunatic if you question it. Forget about it. Your best tactic is to redirect the subject intelligently to what will work to persuade people (the displacement of Whites, IQ and crime, etc.). There are different ways to do this, some good ideas suggested by others are stating that you are against genocide, mention other genocides, note that it was a relatively small percent of the total deaths of WW2, or whatever (my favorite: “Isnt genocide horrible? Displacing a people is a terrible crime. Did you know that European Americans are also being displaced?”) When in discussion, as a general rule get off loser topics and get onto winners that will get you results.

    That being said, in my opinion, Holocaust Revisionism probably does help the WN movement. If it can be proven that there were no homicidal gas chambers, that alone would really rock the boat (and there is very strong evidence that this is so). It was not necessarily the numbers of Jews killed, but the horrible methods that are alleged, that makes the story so compelling. Bullets, starvation and disease are not nearly as sexy as poison gas. Without the gas chambers, Hitler’s antics would be no worse than a slew of other 20th century leaders. It would take a big part of the sting out of that issue. That being said, dont expect Revisionism to become popular any time soon.

  36. It’s only a religion in the same sense that the Revolutionary War is a relgion, or the Civil War is a religion: It could be false, but it is so unlikely that it has to considered a fact. And, like a person denying the civil war, a person denying the holocast will get nowhere.

    The evidence of the holocaust is overwhelming: Personal reports, goverment writing, observations, the overflowing anti-semitism that was growing in Germany, the pictures, the concentration camps, etc.

    It’s kind of hard to argue that the numbers are inaccurate when the leader of Auschwitz camp alone, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höss, admitted that millions died there (although he thought that the orignal numbers were far too high.) And he is not the only one. Or take the Wannsee Conference

    Where are the mounds of ash? They were generally bored into bodies of water or used as fertilizer. The rest of the bodies were generally buried in mass graves. There are more than a few images of these graves.

    Strange how the only ones denying the holocaust are Nazi sympathizers. Would we even be having this conversation if it was black man exectuing millions of white men? Spoilers: Hell no!

    In fact, why aren’t you calling the beilief that several million people died during the reign of Communism in soviet Russia a religion? WHERE ARE THE BODIES!!!??? Is it because he is a Communist? Nah….

Comments are closed.