Ron Unz

Using his usual analytical methods, Ron has discovered that the Jews of Europe, during WWII, were sent off to live on a farm in the country.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

272 Responses to Ron Unz

  1. Frau Katze says:

    I went to look for the article and found prominently displayed is “9/11 was an Israeli job”

  2. Frau Katze says:

    My comment disappeared. What gives?

  3. Frau Katze says:

    Any controversial comments are being filtered out. How can we discuss this if WordPress won’t display comments?

  4. Pincher Martin says:

    He’s completely bonkers.

    I once thought, in my more innocent days of speculating about Unz’s motives, that he was propelled by politics.

    Well, obviously that can’t be right.

    • syonredux says:

      You just don’t understand the complexities of Ron’s mind.See, Erhard Milch having a Jewish father= The Holocaust didn’t happen….or maybe wasn’t as bad as people say..or something……

    • David Chamberlin says:

      I gave Unz the benefit of the doubt and thought he advanced idiotic conspiracy theories because they created interest. It could be partially true, but who cares. Intentional or not it’s still nonsense.

      • anon says:

        I like idiotic conspiracy theories. Besides being entertaining, sometimes they compile some true and interesting stuff in service of a stupid conclusion. I know a lot more about the weird side of the CIA than I would if I had never heard a JFK assassination conspiracy theory even if Oswald ultimately did act alone. Even The Politician, the Birch Society book about Ike being a tool of international communism has some interesting nuggets.

        • akarlin says:

          Indeed, the very term “conspiracy theory” is the result of a successful CIA conspiracy.

          • Toddy Cat says:

            As Nate Cofnas has remarked, everybody believes in some conspiracy theories. “Conspiracy Theories” as a perjoritive is reserved for those conspiracy theories we don’t happen to believe in…

            • Pincher Martin says:

              To be fair, Chamberlin did write “idiotic” conspiracy theories. Conspiracies do exist. We have many laws on the books against them. But nine times out of ten, when someone online posits a conspiracy, it’s one of the idiotic variety.

              Also, the term “conspiracy theory” gained its current negative connotation in the 1960s when ti began to be used to coin some implausible notions, such as LBJ killed JFK, Malcolm X was murdered by the US government, or (and Ron Unz will like this one) that RFK was murdered by Israelis.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Yes, the highly successful Project Mockingbird, which turned every network into a CIA propaganda outlet…

        • Pincher Martin says:

          I like idiotic conspiracy theories. Besides being entertaining, sometimes they compile some true and interesting stuff in service of a stupid conclusion.

          What that usually means is that you need to have history retconned for you in bizarre ways in order for you to read more history.

          The history of the CIA seems sufficiently interesting in and of itself. One shouldn’t need to counter the claim that the organization killed off JFK to read more about it.

          • Ilya says:

            Indeed. There’s a lot interesting history. I got into some of it accidentally, when researching the family background of an ex-gf of mine. This book has some interesting stories surrounding the JFK assassination players:

            Tangentially, who would’ve known that a great-granddaughter of a test pilot and mercenary would be so timid and neurotic. Or, perhaps, it’s just that grad schools are inherently unhealthy environments for women.

  5. Polymath says:

    Maybe you can argue how many millions it was exactly and whether the main cause of their death was starvation or exposure or disease or being shot or gas chambers, but ultimately, in early1933 there were a lot more Jews than in late 1945 and censuses pre- and post-war give you a good enough first approximation to make the necessary moral judgments. You can have fun poking holes in the stories of individuals whose Holocaust narratives may have been opportunistic and fabricated, but that doesn’t change the math.

    • gothamette says:


      Raul Hilberg thought that 5.1 million Jews were murdered.

      Soviet propaganda said that 4 million people were killed at Auschwitz. Yehuda Bauer later knocked that down to 1 million or so.

      Does it matter?

      My old stats professor, who began his career during the Depression, said that no one really knew exactly how many people were “out of work” during the Depression. We just know that a lot of people were out of work, and it was very hard times.

      I guess that the Jews of Europe faked their own death. What an amazing disappearing job they did. All over. Take Greece – they had small but rooted Jewish communities all over the place before WW2, and after, poof! Gone!

      Houdini, I guess.

    • gothamette says:

      ” You can have fun poking holes in the stories of individuals whose Holocaust narratives may have been opportunistic and fabricated, but that doesn’t change the math.”

      PS – This does happen, and it sucks. For example, I was curious about one of the people mentioned in Fania Fenelon’s Playing For Time, Alma Rose, and discovered that Fenelon had besmirched Rose’s character (to build up her own), which leads me to wonder what else she exaggerated or distorted.

      But that doesn’t change the basic fact that Fenelon was sent to Auschwitz, and that many Jews, Poles and Gypsies were murdered there.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Agreed. The Germans murdered a lot of Jews, Gypsies, Nuns, Ministers,Priests, dissidents and perhaps 30 million Russians..What annoys people is the moral preening and hype surrounding exactly one of these groups, which by the way did not exist prior to the 1980s.
      For example, University of Chicago Professor Bruno Bettelheim, a German Jew, was notorious, when other Jewish faculty members talked about this, for demanding to know why their family members had not left when they had the chance,after Hitler and the Nazis
      made their intentions clear.
      Nor have the Ukrainians, Armenians, Biafrans, Cambodians, Native Americans, and currently Yemenis gotten much publicity or influence out of their misfortunes..Indeed, the USA seems quite on board with the situation in Yemen.

  6. Misdreavus says:

    If I’m not mistaken, the best evidence for the Holocaust comes from census records showing a demographic collapse of the European Jewish population during the war. Hard to fake millions of missing people.

    Oh, and prominent Nazis talked about doing it 24/7. Can’t fake that either.

    • Frau Katze says:

      There were some cover up work. Take the extermination camp at Treblinka. A big camp like Auschwitz was partly used for slave labour. It was a big installation.

      Treblinka had no other purpose. As it became clear the Red Army would be arriving fairly soon, they tore it down and tried to remove the evidence.

      Still, there so much other evidence, such as the use of simple firing squads (many witnesses) in the parts of the USSR they occupied. The Nazis were in a hurry by then.

      The extensive use of railways used to transport Jews from western Europe could hardly be hidden. Now where were the railways going? And why did no one ever see those people again?

      And definitely the Nazi ranting. But even that tended to be just how much they hated Jews rather than about how many they killed. At least for the leaders.

      • Cloveoil says:

        Why would they cover it up though? Public support was high.

        • reinertor says:

          No it wasn’t, only a small minority was enthusiastic about it. Most Germans were terrified of the consequences of the mass murderous rampage while waging a war against most of the rest of the world. There were rumors already in 1942 of ethnic Germans in America being forced to wear red swastikas etc. Germans were not stupid, and understood that after that, they either win the war or there will be no mercy.

          Actually, the harsh treatment they got after 1945 (it was harsh, contrary to myths, though nowhere near Bacque tier) felt light to most of them: they were expecting much worse. In a sense, probably this is one important reason for the weird and ever stronger holocaust cult in West Germany (East Germany still doesn’t have it in full), because by the late 1950s their living standards were already significantly higher than before the war. So they thought, they didn’t even suffer much. So the Jews must be really nice people if they forgave it so soon. (Most Jews didn’t forgive at all, but that’s a different story, and it appeared to Germans as if they forgave, and perceptions mattered.)

          • gcochran9 says:

            They weren’t terrified in 1942. They thought they’d win.

            • reinertor says:

              It’s difficult to say, but what’s for sure is that the Gestapo recorded a number of strange rumors already in 1942: the swastikas forced on the Germans in America or Bavarian Catholic farmers discussing how it was unwise to mass murder so many people, because it was not yet sure if Germany would win the war.

              Anyway, it was theoretically punishable by death to say openly that Germany might lose the war (and occasionally they did execute people for things like that to create a chilling effect on discussing the topic), and from more recent examples we know that Germans are pretty conformist not to dare openly discuss things contradicting the official ideology of the time.

              But many Germans remembered (and some of them said so openly according to the SD or the Gestapo informers) that they were also winning the first war, initially. German were cocksure they’d won the war in July 1940, then by August they started to realize that it wasn’t so. Again, in the summer of 1941 they might’ve believed (after the initial shock of hearing about this new, huge front) that they would win, but by 1942 they cannot have been too certain if they were looking at maps: the areas conquered in 1942 were very small compared to the areas conquered in 1941 (so it seemed like the advance was slowing down), not to mention the vast remaining territory of the USSR. And there are some indications that many Germans were, indeed, looking at maps occasionally.

              • epoch2013 says:

                From Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question” comes this notion: Most Germans weren’t fanatic anti-Semites. Even most NSDAP party members even weren’t. Most Germans were indifferent to discriminatory laws but detested violence against Jews. Ian Kershaw reached a similar conclusion based on different sources.


                “Apparently anti-Semites and determined opponents of anti-Semitism were polarized around an indifferent or apathetic majority, yet one that was increasingly sympathetic to Jews during and after Kristallnacht”

            • gothamette says:

              Yes – most did.

              But here’s what I’d love to know. Wasn’t there anyone with a few active brain cells in Germany during this time, who had been to the US, maybe studied here, and who thought it was ridiculous for Germany to declare war on us? Someone who saw that (at that time) the US had tremendous untapped strengths which, if mobilized in a war, would unite and crush Germany?

              • gothamette says:

                From what I’ve read, another reason why most of the big killing centers were built in Poland was because after Hitler got rid of the Jews, he was going to take care of the Poles, and then other Slavs. It was more efficient that way. What was the point of transporting millions of Slavs into Germany proper to kill them? Do it on the spot.

        • Frau Katze says:

          I don’t why, but they did. Plus Hitler tried not to get his name mentioned on documents in connection with setting it up.

          I suspect that at some level, the Nazis knew there would great disapproval.

          Killing unarmed civilians en masse was not admirable behaviour in that era.

          • reinertor says:

            The German population didn’t like it much. Already in 1942 Bavarian farmers were discussing it disapprovingly, and they said that on top of it being evil, it wasn’t even very wise, because it wasn’t yet sure that Germany would win the war, after all.

  7. Lior says:

    They weren’t sent to a farm, they all just happened to fake their death for the life insurance policy right around the same time.

  8. gruffles says:

    I’m worried Unz’s behavior will take out Sailer and some of the other interesting guys on the site. Razib’s decision to leave now seems very prudent.

    • jason y says:

      maybe it’s political after all

      probably not, though.

    • magusjanus says:

      Razib was willing to write for the NYT. I’d consider that far worse. Of course, as a strategic “work inside the enemy to spread the word” decision, it probably made sense. But from a purely moral ‘these people are insane’ metric, the NYT is far far far worse than Unz and his weird stuff.

      • Frau Katze says:

        NYT is far worse because how much power they have.

        They hold the same stupid leftist ideas that are sadly widespread. I admit I had a subscription for many years. Some of their reporting was good. They’ve really gone downhill since Trump.

        I finally cancelled over Sarah Jeong,

    • akarlin says:

      I think that’s unlikely. Reprinting an earlier comment that addresses this argument:

      Doubt it. The individual bloggers/authors are firewalled from each other, there is no common editorial policy, and the likes of Wally aren’t going to appear on my comments threads. For example, how exactly is this supposed to impact negatively on Sailer (ostracized from handshakeworthy journalism anyway)? Will you stop commenting on my blog specifically because Ron published that article? …

      Falsifiable prediction: Readership of the UR will continue growing steadily, and will be appreciably larger in a year’s time than now. (That’s bearing in mind that even current figures are at an all time high).

      • David Chamberlin says:

        It probably will grow but the question is why and what audience will it cater to. Their will still be some reputable writers there such as yourself but for the most part the articles are ridiculous diatribes at best and delusional rants at worst and the comment section goes down hill from there. The point I am making is average people aren’t just bad at understanding the complex reality around them, they have completely given up trying to have an open mind. All they do is look to confirm their crackpot ideas, and since Unz review is crackpot idea central it will continue to grow. Don’t confuse popularity with intellectual integrity. A brilliant lecture by a respected professor like John Hawks will get 1000 views on Youtube, Some drunkard who lights his balls on fire and jumps off a garage roof onto a card table is guaranteed ten million.

        • Highlander says:

          Nonsense. There are still a lot of good writers there. Gottfried, Napolitano (dead right about the Trump “leaks” coming from “British Intelligence”), Karlin, Dinh, Finklestein, Derbyshire, Ron Paul etc. Even Pat Buchanan still has his stuff reprinted on Unz.

          • David Chamberlin says:

            I said there are some good/reputable writers there. As someone else said before me the articles are 80% nuts and liars. And the discussion threads are an absolute waste of time to read or participate in. If it isn’t obvious to you that the Unz Review caters to whatever shit the masses want to read and want to babble on about than I can only shrug and repeat the old cliche about poker because it applies to mass consumption of everything. “If you don’t know who the sucker at the poker table is, it’s you.”

  9. Frau Katze says:

    From an August 2018 article by Unz:

    He discovers that in 1976 the magazine Reason did a whole issue on Holocaust denial

    I was then too busy with my work to focus on the matter, but some months later I had more time, and began a detailed investigation. My first step was to carefully read the Reason articles produced by those controversial writers previously unknown to me. Although those pieces were not Holocaust-related, I thought they might give me a sense of their thinking.

    To my surprise, the historiography seemed outstandingly good, and almost certainly accurate based on what I had picked up over the years from perfectly mainstream sources. Dr. Martin’s long article on the notorious framing of “Tokyo Rose” was probably the best and most comprehensive treatment I had ever encountered on that topic, and Dr. App’s analysis of the tragedy of the Sudeten-Germans was equally strong, raising several points I had previously not known. Percy Greaves effectively summarized many of the very suspicious aspects of the Pearl Harbor attack, and although his case for the prosecution against FDR was certainly not airtight, it accorded with the views presented by numerous scholars in other books on the subject. Moreover, his position was seconded by a young Bruce Bartlett, later a prominent Reagan and Bush official, and still later a strong Republican opponent of George W. Bush, routinely feted by the New York Times. Most of the other writings also seemed of very high quality, including Dr. North’s summary of World War II Revisionism. In general, the academic scholarship of those articles greatly surpassed anything found in opinion magazines of more recent decades, Reason itself included. Those so interested can click on the above links, read the articles in question, and decide for themselves.

  10. gcochran9 says:

    ” the very suspicious aspects of the Pearl Harbor attack,” full-spectrum lunacy.

  11. Chris B says:

    The Holocaust didnt even become a thing until the 60s I believe. It seems to have been developed for two reasons 1) to garner support for Israel 2) to give them Jewish american population a victimhood narrative so they could claim parity with blacks during the civil rights era. Now this doesn’t discount that Jews were treated poorly in the WW2 period, but why did it take so long for people to realise there was a “Holocaust”?

    • gcochran9 says:

      Earlier, different words were used. Here’s one from Chester Wilmot’s “The Struggle for Europe, 1952, concerning German fears of the Morgenthau Plan: “even those Germans who had not been corrupted by years of anti-Semitic propaganda knew they had no right to expect mercy from the rae that their own government had sought to destroy by persecution and pogrom in the most bestial campaign of genocide that Europe had ever known.” – 1952 Clearly a longer phrase than “holocaust”. Or Churchill, to his Foreign Secretary, 11th July 1944: ” There is no doubt that this [ persecution of Jews in Hungary and their expulsion from enemy territory] is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and on of the leading races of Europe.” Positively long-winded.

      • Chris B says:

        That’s awfully weak isn’t it? The Churchil memo. As is the Wilmott reference. There is a big difference between “persecution and pogrom” and the organosed and centralised extermination claimed in Holocaust historiography.

        • gcochran9 says:

          ” the most bestial campaign of genocide that Europe has ever known” is weak? ” greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world” is weak? Go fuck yourself.

          • Le Ed says:

            Well said, Greg.

            From the wikipedia
            “Raul Hilberg (June 2, 1926 – August 4, 2007) was an Austrian-born Jewish-American political scientist and historian. He was widely considered to be the world’s preeminent[1][2][3] scholar of the Holocaust, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution.”

            This work was published in 1961. Written by a imo a serious person which great integrity, agree?

            • reinertor says:

              I like Hilberg’s magnum opus. Interestingly, his numbers are among the lowest available estimates, and it seems to me his calculations are the most methodical. Most holocaust historiography seems to put the totals as a kind of afterthought somewhere in the conclusions, but often with very little details. As opposed to Hilberg, who thoroughly counts by two methods (based on killing centers/fields/methods, and another one based on demographics), and both wield roughly 5.1 million.

              If there’s anything to the conspiracy theories, I’d say that the real number might be closer to 5 million, and it was still rounded up to 6 million. Basically, that’s the most factually holocaust denialist positions which might be true.

              In the sense of “holocaust relativization” etc., you can easily argue that it was not that big of a deal: it was horrible, but history is full of horrible things. It was certainly more methodical than, basically, any other genocide, but that’s because it was committed by a methodical and civilized people, against a culturally and economically often dominant middleman minority, which was therefore more thoroughly hated than ethnic enemies usually are hated.

              • Frau Katze says:

                It’s singularly creepy the way it was done. It was so methodical, using companies to build crematoriums according to particular requirements. The trains used for transport ran efficiently.

                Jews could located throughout Germany using punch cards with census data. IBM supplied the technology (they had supplied it earlier, they didn’t anticipate it would be used that way).

                The Turks just drove Armenians into desert. Stalin just took all the grain from the Ukraine. Both knew there’d be lethal consequences and I don’t mean to trivialize these events.

              • Frau Katze says:

                Some people dispute that IBM didn’t know how their technology was being used.

          • Magus says:

            That’s a rare winner of the coveted “get Greg to tell me to f myself” award right there.

            Been a while.

        • Yudi says:

          Similarly, Frederick Douglass using the phrase “the prejudice against color” instead of our superior term “racism” is evidence of his weakness.

    • saintonge235 says:

      During WWII, (I think it was 1943), Arthur Koestler published a story about the war, including the extermination vans that poisoned their passengers with engine exhaust. When someone wrote him a letter asking if this had any basis in fact, Koestler exploded back at him that the Jews were being systematically murdered as a race throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

      The word “Holocaust” may have only caught on in the 1960s, but the fact of systematic mass murder was well known long before that.

  12. Περδίκκας says:

    the lengths some people will go through just to fit into a cultural stereotype…

  13. Space Ghost says:

    You say 6 million, I say 600. Let’s just say it was somewhere in between.

    • syonredux says:

      “You say 6 million, I say 600. Let’s just say it was somewhere in between.”

      A bit over five million sounds about right….

      • Space Ghost says:

        It’s like he’s deliberately trying to blow up his own brand, and that of everyone associated with him. Very suspicious.

        • Frau Katze says:

          I assume he was always like this. Perhaps he didn’t talk about it as much in the past.

          When did the “9/11 was an Israeli job” become his public position?

          • Hwite says:

            Before his “myth of American meritocracy” article he never wrote much about Jews as far as I can see. There was always some level of conspiracism in his worldview, but until a few years ago it was smart conspiracism. He thought POWs were left behind in Vietnam, something I disagree with, but I understand how a rational person could look at the evidence and reach that conclusion. I was certainly taken aback by his decent into madness. I gotta give credit to the guy who write the Lion of the Blogosphere Blog. He saw through Unz from the beginning.

      • reinertor says:

        Though most holocaust histories put the number around 5.6-5.8 million.

        My conspiracy theory is that Raul Hilberg’s 5.1 million is the correct number, and they are inflating the number to over 5.5 million so that it could be rounded up to 6 million. But I’m not an expert, so I wouldn’t be very surprised if it turned out the official numbers were correct.

        Just given the fact that PC usually distorts reality, I think it’s not unlikely that the numbers are slightly inflated.

        • reinertor says:

          When I write “the official numbers,” I mean the 5.6-5.8 million numbers, which one can read in most books on the subject.

          • Ilya says:

            Do you know how Hilberg breaks things down?

            From what I’ve read, the 6 million is rounded up from ~1 million that the Einsatzgruppen shot plus the 4.8 million that Dieter Wisliceny (Eichmann’s adjutant), from memory, claimed were sent to extermination camps.

  14. adreadline says:

    Yikes. That’s sick. And twisted.
    Now, if Mr. Unz starts peddling some ”gay germ hypothesis”, for the life of me, I’m outta here!

    • syonredux says:

      “Yikes. That’s sick. And twisted.
      Now, if Mr. Unz starts peddling some ”gay germ hypothesis”, for the life of me, I’m outta here!”

      If only Ron were sick and twisted……After all, reality is often sick and twisted (cf parasitic wasps)….Sadly, Ron is merely wrong…..

  15. Bob says:

    Too much Burger King?

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.

    • Frau Katze says:

      That must have been a few years ago as he was born in 1961. But Wiki lists no spouse or children. I wonder if he still lives that way now. By now he could afford a cleaning service.

      Even more bizarre thing is his own Jewish background.

    • reziac says:

      Sounds more like untreated mild schizophrenia, of which the only visible symptom, when the sufferer is otherwise functional, may be using conspiracy theories to make an otherwise-too-chaotic world make sense to themselves. One shrink pointed out that such schizo-driven conspiracy theories invariably latch onto one of two general culprits: 1) Illuminati, aliens, “the elites”, and other such ethereals who are unavailable for comment, or 2) Jews-control-everything (even when their alleged nefarious activities are manifestly against their own interests, eg. holocausts).

      I’m of the opinion that the recurring notion of the EvilJoos is also largely bumped by Muslim operatives, so it’s exceptionally handy for the schizos to glom onto.

  16. swampr says:

    Reminds me or the time a bunch of Armenians headed off to enjoy the solitude of the Syrian desert.

  17. pyrrhus says:

    Not seeing a lot of substance in this discussion..Jews were murdered by the Nazis, but some of the details were manufactured by the Holocaust industry, without a doubt…And the Zionist gangsters, the Irgun, got a lot of help from Eichmann and some of the Nazis…History is not a seamless web.

    • Frau Katze says:

      How much history have you read? It’s not invented. It’s not an “industry.”

      You are either stupid or a strange but intelligent person like Unz himself.

      And, no I’m not Jewish either. But I’ve read a lot about the two world wars.

      • NobodyExpectsThe... says:

        Something can be true, and at the same time, sistematically used, on and industrial scale, for political gain. Much more than many other also real, true, historical events.

        • Toddy Cat says:

          Yes, the beliefs that: 1) The Holocaust happened; 2) It killed about as many people as advertised; 3) Its memory has been systematically used by certain individual, organizations and nations to advance their political agendas; and 4) Discussions of its historicity should not be off limits, are in no way mutually exclusive.

          • reinertor says:

            Exactly. The holocaust as some kind of religion is very very wrong, even though the factual basis of it true. (That the Germans systematically tried to murder Jews, employing a wide variety of methods including mass incarceration in ghettos and concentration camps, mass shootings, and industrialized mass murder in gas chambers, altogether killing definitely more than 5 million of them.)

            But it’s not something from which you could or should learn that Trump=Hitler, or that all refugees should always be welcome, or that immigrants are holy, especially illegal immigrants, etc.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Many of the details have been debunked by Jews like David Cole, who was almost murdered as a result. But if you have read a lot of history, as I have, you are aware that genocide is a rather commonplace occurrence, even in modern times, with some ongoing, like Yemen. And if you don’t think it’s an industry, with dozens of Holocaust museums, books,Hollywood movies, lectures, etc. then I guess we have different definitions for the word.

        • Frau Katze says:

          It didn’t seem like an industry to me growing up and living in BC, Canada. There’s very few Jews here. There’s no museum in BC AFAIK. There’s so few I was an adult before I met one. They might have been holding lectures but if so I didn’t know about them. I never saw a movie the related to it. I’m not much for movies.

          No one talked about in my family and group of friends. My only exposure was “The Diary of Anne Frank” in high school. That book did an impression on me.

          There also a book about it by William Shirer at home. It didn’t make much on impression on me and now I understand it had many mistakes.

          I don’t the motive of the historians I read to write on it. Richard Evans doesn’t sound a Jewish name. Neither does Ian Kershaw. I was more interested in the cause of WW1. I was hunting for where the modern lunacy comes from.

          Without 9/11 I might not have begun my reading binge. I knew zero about Islam. By then my kids were grown up and I had free time in the evenings.

          I started on reading on wtf 9/11 was all about and it branched out over the years. I soon realized the MSM had been inaccurate or outright liars about various things for years. I soon lost faith in them and the entire left.

          I read more on WW1 than WW2. Yes, I learned of other mass killings from my reading too. Plus learned that it was very common in tribe/class societies, which was how everyone lived until relatively recently. By then I was following HBD Chick and West Hunter and others.

          Did you know that Armenia seized a small part of neighboring Azerbaijan in the wake of the USSR breakdown? It’s called Nagorny Karabakh and historically there had been both Armenians and Azeris living there. They’re occupying about 14% of Azerbaijani territory to this day to ensure their hold on NK.

          I still do believe that the Turks killed a large number of Armenians. But why does NK get no mention anywhere except relatively obscure sources like RFE/RL. It was one of areas my reading program branched out to. Yes, I’m familiar with Yemen. It’s a Sunni – Shiite thing and it being sponsored by Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those two don’t get along, to say the least.

          Pakistan is another place with an endless amount of conflict because it has many strains of Islam. Besides Sunnis and Shiites there’s pot-smoking Sufis and the heterodox Ahmadiyya. Toss in several different ethnicities, including one with a separatist agenda (Balochistan) and it’s a recipe for constant violence.

          I don’t anything about David Cole. I’ve seen his name from time to time at Taki’s otherwise never heard of him. From reading Steve Sailer I learned that there were many more Jews in the US and that many occupied positions of influence. Apparently ADL do exploit it. But Sailer, though he resents some of this Jewish influence isn’t a denier AFAIK.

          So I did grow up and still live in a different milieu. But the leftists here are just as crazy as any in the US. My takeaway is that Jews have contributed to the modern lunacy but they’re hardly alone in that respect.

  18. Young says:

    Could be if it was the same type of farm my dog was sent to when my parents and neighbors got tired of it.

  19. Maciano says:

    “Show me a holocaust denier and I’ll show you someone who wants to repeat it”, is a good rule of thumb.

    Though, Unz is Jewish, which is puzzling.

    • gcochran9 says:

      One has visions of the Pillsbury Dough Boy jumping into the oven.

      • Maciano says:

        I don’t ever engage Holocaust deniers or real antisemites often, but when I do, I tell them to look up on the history of the Romaniotes. They weren’t Ashkenazi or assimilated into the majority culture. This community lived in Greece for 2 millennia, until the nazis killed them off. They’re gone now. These people weren’t powerful or rich, they were simple folk; they never did nothing to nobody.

        If their faith doesn’t make a person flinch, you’re dealing with a psychopath.

        • Mardochaios Frizis says:

          The best example aren’t even the Romaniotes. One should look up what happened to the Jews of Thessaloniki, 50,000 strong until early 1941, the majority of whom were Sephardim. Where are they now?

        • Cloveoil says:

          “The Romaniotes are Greek Jews, distinct from both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, who trace back their history to the times of the Greek-speaking Byzantine Jews and can be subdivided in a wider sense in a Rabbanite community and in the Greco-Karaite community of the Constantinopolitan Karaites which still survives to this day.

          Karaites were allowed to become Nazis. This might prove you’re point – they survived – but it gives a more complicated picture of Nazis playing off Jewish groups against one another, as governments always have as regards religious divisions.

  20. True, it’s probably time to send the men in white coats with large butterfly nets after Ron. OTH, he has made Mencken’s “American Mercury,” Huneker’s “The Bookman,” and a lot of other useful stuff available online. Maybe he could still do that inside an asylum?

  21. Big Bill says:

    OK. You can relax. You proved your bona fides. Y’all won’t get bounced off WordPress for another six months. 🙂

    • DH says:

      Sailer did the same a few days ago in a post about a movie. But he did not go into details about numbers, clever, but not clever enough, haha
      Propter metum iudaorum…

    • Thersites says:

      Dr. Cochran hasn’t exactly been fleeing public controversy for most of the 21st century. He also writes under his real name, in contrast to timid, pseudonymous souls like myself (and presumably you as well, unless your father was Mr. Bill and “Big” was assigned at your christening). That he is masking his secret agreement with the views of Mr. Unz out of base cowardice is about as likely as Jefferson Davis’ having been secretly an undercover abolitionist.

  22. biz says:

    We are constantly told, to the point of it being a boring cliche, that it is not antisemitic to be obsessed with criticizing Israel. We are constantly told that associating critics of Israel with antisemitism is just a dishonest tactic to distract from the injustice of the indigenous brown Palestinian Arabs who have inhabited that land in an unbroken chain and form since the universe was created.

    This was basically Unz’s line for a long time. But now he goes and comes out proud as full Holocaust denier and blood libel truther. Is he trying to discredit his previous position?

    • reinertor says:

      Logically speaking, there’s no contradiction.

      First, holocaust deniers usually accept that the holocaust – had it happened – would have been wrong, so they cannot be full Nazis. After all, Nazis didn’t merely deny the holocaust (in fact, people like Hitler even almost boasted about it in his speeches), but they committed it. They also believed that it was a fundamentally good thing to do. So honest to God holocaust deniers cannot be true Nazis or very extreme anti-Semites. Those who merely deny it for propagandistic effects are different, but most holocaust deniers are the kind where simple lunacy is the most economic explanation.

      Second, even if Ron’s holocaust denial was evidence of being an evil anti-Semite (in the worst sense of the word), then it still only shows that he is both a critic of Israel and a mass murderous Jew-hater. It doesn’t follow that the two positions are intrinsically connected.

      • biz says:

        The two positions are, in theory, possibly independent, but in practice they are not. It is just strange that Unz chose to be yet another person to embody this.

        • reiner Tor says:

          You are wrong, but pretty soon we’ll be debating if Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, which will not be a very interesting debate.

          Let me just point out that most critics of Israel are on the far left rather than the far right, and that there are many Jews in its ranks.

          • akarlin says:

            To extend your point:

            The hard right has a certain admiration for Israel as a “national” state they want to emulate, the anti-Muslim crowd likes it for obvious reasons, and the HBD/IQist wing has a ready and obvious answer for Jewish overrepresentation in all sorts of spheres. The main intellectual “cluster” from the right that propounds counter-Semitism comes via McDonald’s EGI theory. (Anglin et al. are funny but they are not intellectuals).

            The Left are blank slatists, and many are anti-imperialists. So to be consistent, they need to be anti-Semitic almost by default.

            • biz says:

              I agree with this completely.

              Also, contrary to the comment above, it is not a contradiction to say that most criticism of Israel at present is from the Left, and that most criticism of Israel is ultimately motivated, at base, by antisemitism.

        • pyrrhus says:

          It is entirely possible to criticize Israel’s policies, as I sometimes do, and yet admire Israel in general, as I do…So the ADL’s position that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is simply idiotic, and political in nature.

      • gothamette says:

        @reinertor – Not that I’m an expert on Andrew Anglin, but he doesn’t fall into the category of “Denier who thinks it would have been wrong.” He denies it, and thinks it would have been great. He and the other Andrew (Auernheimer?) want an American Holocaust and say so openly.

        They are both weird losers and very fucked up, but I find the 2nd Andrew to be particularly pathetic. His own grandfather was an American Indian and a playwright, a bohemian man of the theater. And he’s an exile in some East European shithole threatening Jews with toy arrows.

    • gcochran9 says:

      The Israelis have been the aggressor in most of their wars, and the Palestinians are more descended from the Jews of Biblical times than the Ashkenazi Jews are – who are majority European. If you don’t like that. just jump into your time machine and change it.

      While the Nazis were monsters. All true.

      • reinertor says:

        The Nazis were monsters, but they had really fine aesthetic sense, and apart from the murderous lunacy of creating a racial empire in a few years of war, their ideology was actually closer to reality than either communism or modern post-1945 (or rather post-1968) blank slate liberalism. It was at least not totally impossible to create their utopia, since their utopia didn’t fully contradict human nature.

        Anyway, it’d have been nice if Hitler died sometime in early 1939 or late 1938, and his state was preserved until this very day, but only roughly inside the ethnic German borders. (Not very likely, all kinds of things could’ve happened, including a nuclear war, a coup or democratization.) Maybe it’d have prevented the US from going fully crazy. Who knows?

        • Toddy Cat says:

          “their ideology was actually closer to reality than either communism or modern post-1945 (or rather post-1968) blank slate liberalism.”

          Possibly true, but also a frighteningly low bar to clear. But yeah, if you have your uniforms designed by Hugo Boss and your top film maker is Leni Reifenstall, you’re going to have some pretty kick-ass visuals. Hitler, as an artist, also had an eye for striking images, if nothing else.

          • reinertor says:

            a frighteningly low bar to clear

            Well, blank slate liberalism is the official ideology of most of the world (even, to an extent, Russia), while during the Cold War half of the world had communism.

            So I compared them to their ideological rivals who ruled the world after they were gone, though admittedly what I broadly call “liberalism” was not nearly as lunatic back then as it became later on.

        • Frau Katze says:

          I read a lot about the world wars because it seems that those wars were indeed the trigger for today’s lunacy. Especially WW2.

          But others find some the cause pre-WW1. Ugly modern “art”, for example. But would it have reached the levels we see today without the wars?

          • reiner Tor says:

            Which is why it’d have been nice if the Nazis hadn’t started a second world war. They reached most of the realistically achievable German nationalist goals anyway (if they hadn’t occupied Czechia, they’d probably have been able to get Danzig and maybe even the corridor peacefully), so the only goals left (creating a huge racial empire, while exterminating the peoples inconveniently living there) were both evil and dumb.

            The Nazis with their behavior 1939-45 (especially 1941-45) provided a great model for the cartoon villain which blank slate liberalism needed for its success. But it’s possible we’d be here anyway. Interestingly even Sweden is being destroyed by this madness, despite them never have colonized anything outside Europe and not having been Nazis or allied to the Nazis.

            • Frau Katze says:

              But Sweden was trading with Germany in both wars. One thing was iron ore, needed greatly by Hitler.

              I speculate that a sense of guilt of their WW2 position might be the root of their collective insanity. But it makes no real sense since the people today aren’t responsible for their ancestors’ behaviour.

              I can hardly believe that a measly 17% of Swedes want to stop immigration, especially from highly different cultures. (I’m referring to the recent Swedish election).

              Denmark is much fussier and more sensible (Nazis occupied Denmark.)

              After all, Germany itself had wild overreaction in the 60s and 70s.

              • saintonge235 says:

                Sweden had a colony in the New World, around what’s now New Jersey IIRC.

                And there was that Viking stuff, and the invasion of England in 1066.

              • Frau Katze says:

                @saintonge235 Sweden’s new world involvement in new world colonies was next to nonexistent compared to the Brits.

                No, I’m not including Vikings. That’s just too long ago.

                1066 was launched from France, even though the Normans were originally from Scandinavia. They were French enough to completely change the English language with mass borrowing of French words. It’s too long ago anyway.

                The situation with WW 1 and 2 is what I was thinking of.

            • epoch2013 says:

              Sweden had trading posts in West Africa where they traded, among else, slaves.

      • biz says:

        “the Palestinians are more descended from the Jews of Biblical times than the Ashkenazi Jews are”

        a) So what? That is immaterial to my point that it seems like to a man all of the people who criticize Israel obsessively and insist that doing so is not antisemitic turn out, in the end, to be antisemites. Unz is the canonical example of this. If spouting blood libel trutherism is not antisemitic, I don’t know what is.

        b) Interesting potential dodge there by putting the modifier “Ashkenazi.” You are aware that the majority of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi, right?

        c) Least importantly, but most interestingly, do we actually know (like with actual genetic data from ancient graveyards or somesuch) that the assertion is actually true?

        • gcochran9 says:

          a. Not true.

          B. They founded the state and run things. And many other Jiewsh also have limited ancestry from Biblical Israel. The Falasha apparently have zero.

          C. Nobody’s looked, but it’s highly likely, since the Ashkenazi have ~60% European ancestry.

          • biz says:

            a. Not true.
            Umm, ok. Care to specify which part?

            B. They founded the state and run things. And many other Jiewsh also have limited ancestry from Biblical Israel. The Falasha apparently have zero.
            Falasha, plus Bene Israel, etc., although interesting and a fun part of Israel, are not huge in population numbers. The typical Jewish Israeli has largely Middle Eastern Jewish roots. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because this isn’t relevant to whether Unz is or is not typical of anti-Israel obsessives.

            C. Nobody’s looked, but it’s highly likely, since the Ashkenazi have ~60% European ancestry.
            And Palestinian Arabs are largely descended from people who settled following the Arab conquests in the 7th century and after. So I’d say contrary to your assertion this is actually a very open question – although still ultimately not actually relevant to any issue of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

            • gcochran9 says:

              “And Palestinian Arabs are largely descended from people who settled following the Arab conquests in the 7th century and after” – on current evidence, some, not a lot. Certainly not 60%. You’re going to have to give it back. Everyone makes mistakes.

              • biz says:

                Gotcha. So to review:

                1) Contrary to your original assertion, it is actually quite an open question, with no real data as of now, as to whether Ashkenazi Jews specifically or Palestinian Arabs are more closely related to biblical-era Jews.

                1a) I wonder if a quick study could be done without digging up any dead bodies. We know that certain specific Y-chromosome haplotypes were present in biblical-era Jews, such as the Cohen one. If the frequency of those is higher among either present-day Ashkenazi Jews or Palestinian Arabs then we have a data point. Of course that would speak to only paternal line ancestry not necessarily fraction of overall ancestry, but it would be more data driven than anything said here so far.

                2) We shall continue to ignore, for purposes of bragging rights to biblical-era Jewish ancestry, that the majority of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi, Falasha, Bene Israel, etc.

                3) The question of who is more or less related to biblical-era Jews continues to be irrelevant to evaluating any claims in the present Israeli-Arab conflict, yet we will continue to fixate on it.

            • reiner Tor says:

              Many of the non-Ashkenazim Israelis are Sephardic in the narrow sense, i.e. descended from the Jewish community exiled from the Iberian peninsula half a millennium ago.

              Maybe I’m wrong, but I think they are also something like 50% Europeans by descent.

              • Cloveoil says:

                Sephardis resemble other Spaniards. Romaniotes just look Greek. Falashas look Ethiopian.

                I swear conversion was as important as lineal descent and that spawned these divergent Jewish groups.

                The Ashkenazis are the odd ones out even then they don’t look Levantine.

              • Michael Eisenstadt says:

                Wrong. Non-Ashkenazi Israelis are and are called Mizrahim: jewish populations of the Middle East who did not come from Spain. After the creation of Israel in 1948 they came to Israel from all over the Arab world: Yemen, Morocco, Iraq, Libya, etc. The Sephardim driven out of Spain in 1492 do not make up a significant percentage of the Israeli population.

        • Hwite says:

          “If spouting blood libel trutherism is not antisemitic, I don’t know what is.”

          I stopped reading his articles after a while so I’m not sure what his position is, but it’s not unreasonable to suspect that some limited incidents did take place:

          • reiner Tor says:

            This actually shows how meaningless the word “anti-Semitic” is. It was originally used by people who assumed that Jews were bad and used the word to describe opposition to Jews, which they thought a positive thing. Moreover, anti-Semitism was a political position which meant that they stood for the legal discrimination of Jews. So even if you thought the blood libel was true, you couldn’t be anti-Semitic unless you supported legal discrimination against Jews. Anti-Semitism was not defined as “saying bad things about Jews or having a dislike of or distaste for Jews,” rather as “standing for legal discrimination and perhaps further legal action against the Jews,” which included those who wanted expulsion or extermination.

            Now it’s used to describe anyone saying anything even slightly bad about Jews, or a subgroup of Jews, or someone stereotypically Jewish, etc. They also use it regardless of the truth of those statements, for example “Jews dominate Hollywood” is considered an anti-Semitic statement without even considering if there is any truth to it. Which is rather meaningless. For example you can say many bad things about a lot of other populations (mostly, historically Christian populations of European descent) without having an “anti-X” label attached to your name. You can say that “the Germans committed the holocaust” without being labeled an “anti-German.” The statement is true, of course. But then some people assert “the holocaust was really popular with the Germans,” which is at the very best unproven (but see The Third Reich in History by Richard J. Evans – it’s mostly proven to be a myth), and yet no one will be called “anti-German” for that smear.

            Anyway I’m at best agnostic about the blood libel idea, and if it proved to be true to a limited extent, it’d still only be of any importance to me due to its having been memory holed and suppressed. I would be surprised if there was any truth to it, but now after superficially glancing through your wiki link, I update my priors to slightly increase its possibility.

            • akarlin says:

              Though if you say enough bad things about germans and consistently so you’ll come you could still be legitimately called a Germanophobe, and ergo with other nationalities. TBF I can reasonably be called a Lettophobe.

              The main difference is ofc that anti-Semitism has been sacralized in the West as something uniquely bad and evil.

      • The G_Man says:

        Greg, because we value your opinion and worry about future generations of bionic humans coming to blood over the meaning of your elliptical remarks:
        1) Which wars do you judge Israel to have been the aggressor in? Presumably 1956, 1967 and 1982, but any others?
        2) When you say ‘you’re going to have to give it back’ do you mean, as a matter of fact they are going to have to give it back, or they are morally obliged to give it back?

        My two cents: while the history of marriage with Italian lovelies was apparently hushed up, everyone knew that there were converts to Judaism and that Jews from different places looked different. The indigenous claim is only really important to a variety of Zionism that died out with the Oslo accords. When people say Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites they mean, mostly, that Jews are members of a continuous historical community. That’s what Christians and Muslims have always thought, including anti-semites (actually, especially anti-semites – can’t have killed Jesus if you were in Tuscany after all), so that’s the majority of the world population right there. I’m pretty sure Chinese people buy into it too in as much as they can be roused to give a hoot. Same with the Palestinians. It wasn’t Zionists who decided they were descendants of Mohammedan invaders; that’s what they think and if you tell them otherwise, then make sure you’re packing heat. And are they so wrong? They speak Arabic, they practice Islam. Your great x20 grandfather in the 7th century could have been a space lizard for all it matters to anyone.

        Same with the ancient Israelites, for that matter. Their whole claim to territory was based upon their not being indigenous, which apparently wasn’t even all that true.

        On the other issue, I think Israel was in the wrong in all three Gaza wars and the 2nd Lebanon war, but not exactly in the sense that they were aggressors. More in the sense that America is wrong imprisoning millions of young black men because it refuses to impose upon them sufficient correctional discipline anywhere outside prison, but won’t allow them to just predate upon white people indefinitely.

        • gcochran9 says:

          48, too. but not 73.

          We know that European Jews have about 60% mixed European ancestry. but we don’t quite know about the other 40%. Could be interesting: a new look at he Y-chromosomes, using sequencing rather han STRs, would be informative. And at the autosomal genes, of course.

          If ancient previous tenancy makes a claim, likely the ancestors of everyone outside Africa has such a claim, and many populations inside Africa as well, since there has been extensive back-migration. I’m not in the mood to take any of that seriously.

          • The G_Man says:

            48? By what, existing?

            I’m not in the mood to take any of that seriously.

            Fine, but you’re the odd one out. The Palestinian claim, to take only the most pressing example, is not that Jews never lived there, it’s that they deserved to get kicked out because they rejected Jesus when he revealed to the truths of Islam (or something). Only western Europeans and Anglosphere liberals subscribe to the view that tenancy in the year 1945 is holy and inviolable, unless you are white and live in Africa and they don’t even apply it to themselves! it makes just as much sense to claim that tenancy in 1968 is holy and inviolable, No-one’s giving anything ‘back’; for a start, the Turks don’t even want it!

      • dearieme says:

        “Jews of Biblical times”: that’s a long stretch of time. The early parts of the Bible are almost certainly fiction anyway. I don’t suppose it’s clear when a people that can be viewed as self-consciously Jewish emerged.

        It would probably be best to pin the time down to …. oh, let’s say, the time when Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea.

      • gothamette says:

        Not that I’m disagreeing with you about Jews, genes & Europeans but how the hell did Ahed Tamimi get that blonde hair and blue eyes?

        “Aggressor” — I call that “taking the initiative,” or “forcing the issue.”

      • pyrrhus says:

        Truth…and the Old Testament Israelis committed plenty of genocides, generally under orders from God.

    • The G_Man says:

      I remember reading a long time ago an article on Ron Unz’s blog called ‘Kahanism or nothing’ (can’t find it now). Basically, he said that because of Israel’s tenous position it would either have to expel all the Arabs or cease to exist, but this was a shame because it was quite a nice country.

      That was during the 1990s or maybe early 2000s (I think, really have to check). According to his recent articles, he had already been alerted during the First Lebanon War to the satanic, uniquely murderous nature of the Jewish religion by reading one book. I therefore don’t think there’s too much point trying to reconstruct the timeline of his thoughts on the issue. It’s always been pretty obvious that that the main criteria for getting a blog on his ‘journal’ was being anti-Israel and/or anti-Jew. Not that no-one else was allowed, just that if that wasn’t your thing you had to be actually, y’know, smart and say interesting things whereas if that wasn’t your thing you could be any old schizo doltard. For example, Ron Unz himself, after experimenting with ‘Jews drink Christian blood’, seems to have plumped for the ‘Jews were behind Communism’ version of anti-semitism, but still hosts Israel Shamir who says the Holodmor was made up and some other unreconstructed Communists. None of this is really supposed to make sense outside of some vendetta he has against his father and his obsession with proving that Hispanics and Ashkenazi Jews would be equally represented among Harvard summa cum laudes if they were just given a fair crack. I’m sure Steve Sailer can give you some more details about chronology if you can coax him to say anything on the subject /jk.

  23. Dennis says:

    Think about it this way. If Germany was able to prevail in Europe, Japan was somehow capable of landing troops in California, and both countries were blockading America, what would have happened to all those Japanese in the internment camps? The American government identified and quarantined racial-political hostiles as the Germans and other nations did during the war.

    Sure, they were treated fine when the war was thousands of miles away and America was exporting food, but if push came to shove, if Americans were starving and blockaded, if domestic bases had to be abandoned in the face of an enemy offensive, the Japanese-Americans would probably have been slowly starved out and/or exterminated lest they serve as assets to their captors and due to vengeance and angry reprisals.

    • gcochran9 says:

      The Germans were killing whatever Jews they could catch, mostly when they still thought they were winning the war. In Russia, started as soon as the Germans invaded. Early in the war, not late. The German Army had to tell German soldiers to stop sending home photos of mass shootings.

      You’re filling in the continent-size blank spots in your knowledge with what you wish was true. Like Unz, They aren’t blank: we know.

      For example, [ As a German reporter wrote at the end of a three-week-long trip into the occupied Ukraine in 1943: “We heard entirely
      clear and explicit announcements about the Jewish question. Among the 16 million inhabitants of the area controlled by the civilian administration
      in the Ukraine, there used to be 1.1 million Jews. They have all been liquidated. . . One of the higher officials of the administration explained
      the executions with the words, ‘the Jews are exterminated like roaches’.”]

      • reinertor says:

        That’s mostly true, but there are some caveats. The war against the “Jewish-Bolshevik enemy” was always going to be especially murderous. They were to kill commissars or communist functionaries as a matter of course. However, Hitler kept his options regarding most of the Jews under his control open until it became clear that all the bridges behind him had been burnt. Hitler already had an inkling the war was not going to be the cakewalk he expected in June 1941, in August he told Goebbels that had he known how strong the Soviets were, he wouldn’t have dared to attack. Later, in September of that year, he made a speech in which he promised his followers that he will never capitulate. Pretty strange from someone who believed he was about to win the war. Then (Tooze mentions it) in December 1941 he told the representatives of the German steel industry that unless they could triple the German steel output, the war would be lost. It might’ve been an exaggeration for effect, but it shows pretty much that Hitler understood he drove himself into a corner. And that was the context when he decided to kill all the remaining Jews, which is to say, the vast majority of them.

        So basically while most Nazis probably indeed believed they were winning until Stalingrad, the principal decision-maker already perceived an increasingly darkening horizon from the summer of 1941 while escalating anti-Jewish policies and the mass murder of Jews.

        However, Hitler’s racial utopia required mass murder on an epic scale anyway. While it’s unclear what his plans for Jews were, his plans for most Slavs (at least Eastern Slavs and Poles) included a great reduction in their numbers, perhaps their eventual disappearance.

        • Dan Bagrov says:

          The plans for the Slavs were particularly horrible. Like what has a Belarusian ever done wrong? Why would anyone want to exterminate them? Makes no sense.

          Reading about this outfit is enough to make one hate the nazis:

          Always bothered me how unbalanced the focus is on the Jews in comparison to the Slavs in this area. Of course we have been dehumanizing Eastern Europeans for a long time, for a number of reasons.

          • Toddy Cat says:

            “we have been dehumanizing Eastern Europeans for a long time”

            Who is “we”? Certainly not Americans in the Cold War. When I was growing up, the Hungarians and Poles and Czechs and Ukranians were considered heroes for rising up against the Nazis and Commies. We observed “Captive Nations Day”. Lots of my friends had relatives behind the Iron Curtain. I certainly can’t remember anything even remotely resembling dehumanization. And yeah, the Nazis were bastards, I certainly can’t blame Eastern Europeans for hating them

      • Dennis says:

        Remember that the Ukraine was near the front line. The NKVD was setting off bombs in Kiev in the fall of ’41. The Soviets launched a counter-offensive in the winter of ’41 after the Nazis failed to take Moscow. The Soviets made a major advance in the winter of ’42. And in ’43, you had huge battles in Kursk and Kharkov.

        Imagine if the Japanese had occupied California and the front was on the West Coast. Japanese agents are engaging in subversive partisan and guerrilla activity in American cities. Major offensives and counteroffensives are taking place. Huge battles – Kursk was the largest tank battle of all time – are happening on the American mainland. You don’t think the internees might have, to put it mildly, had it rougher?

        • gcochran9 says:

          Your analogy is entirely false. The Germans started killing Jews the moment they entered the Soviet Union. You make false excuses for one of the greatest crimes in history: what does that make you?

          • gothamette says:

            Here’s a question for you (Dr. Cochcran) I’ve been storing up for a long time:

            How many Richard Feynmans went up in smoke, or died of typhus in those years? If the Holocaust hadn’t happened, would theoretical physics be 100 years ahead now?

        • syonredux says:

          Dennis, The Nazis started killing Jews en masse in the Summer of ’41 ( cf the activities of the Einsatzgruppen).

          And the creation of a German racial empire in the East was a major policy goal ( The Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost). For the Nazis, killing huge numbers of people in the East was a feature, not a bug…..

          • curri says:

            “racial empire in the East”
            But Hitler couldn’t have thinking of that when he met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 and tried to get the Soviets to become full members of the Axis. He must have mainly thinking of the British refusal to come to peace terms and the movements by FDR in the direction of war. America First Committee had been founded two months earlier.

        • saintonge235 says:

          The plans for the extermination of the Jews were finalized at the Wansee Conference on 1942-01-20. The attempted extermination of the Jews was not because of the reverses in the course of the war, it started before them.

          And the eagerness to ship Jews into the death camps from all over Europe to be murdered in Poland continued as the German forces were retreating.

          The scenario you are trying to peddle is false and ridiculous, and you are a liar.

    • Hwite says:

      The Holocaust started when Germany was winning the war and expanded to cover all areas of occupied Europe, not just the war zones. At the very end of the war, Himmler ordered an end to formal exterminations, while continuing to kill many incarcerated Jews through neglect and forced marches. Your copypasta is crap.

    • Highlander says:

      Except that Japan was totally incapable of landing troops in California just as the Germans were incapable of blockading the Atlantic seaboard despite their attempts to do so. The Japs didn’t have the manpower and the Germans didn’t have a strong enough Navy plus they had their hands full in China and Russia. Our fast carriers, battleships, and supporting vessels had started being laid down in 1938.

  24. Tim Northwood says:

    One way Holocaust denial/revisionism gets legs is the general lameness of the rebuttals. Someone makes a claim about why it couldn’t have happened, and the response is “you are evil” not “you are dumb and here’s why”. If the deniers are wrong it should be easy to refute their claims, such as Karlin did with his demographic analysis recently.

    It looks to me as though it did happen (demographic data don’t lie), but that the Krauts covered it up pretty well and gas chambers and stories about diesel fume suffocation were thrown together haphazardly.

    • DH says:

      It does not help either that most Jews and many Anglos/Russians deny or minimize the massacres or German civilians and POW at the end of and after WWII. That was also a holocaust.

      • gcochran9 says:

        The Western Allies did not massacre German civilians or POWs at the end of the war. It didn’t happen. Now when the Russians (and others) expelled he Germans from Prussia and eastern Europe, something like 12 million people, quite a few died. Estimates range from ~700,000 to 2.5 million.

        • DH says:

          You are forgetting things like Dresden…

          • gcochran9 says:

            Dresden, about 25,000 killed. For the entire war, about 600,000 Germans were killed by bombing – but not after the war, during the war.

            If war was too hard for the Germans, then maybe they shouldn’t have started it.

            • DH says:

              Well, I have got other numbers than you.

              When you finish your comment with “If war was too hard for the Germans, then maybe they shouldn’t have started it”, you are conceding a lot.

              Hey, did I say minimize? These days the progressives celebrate Dresden. In such context. Peter Brimelow, I think it was him, concept of “Hitler’s revenge” is quite apt for the current state of the USA. What goes around comes around.

              • syonredux says:

                “Well, I have got other numbers than you.”

                False numbers, from the sound of it.Please don’t tell me that you believe Bacque’s drivel….

                “You are forgetting things like Dresden…”

                More Germans died in the bombing of Hamburg than died in the bombing of Dresden (approx 25,000 vs approx 40,000).

          • Toddy Cat says:

            La Wik says:
            “The (Dresden) city authorities at the time estimated up to 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council.”
            That’s terrible, but it ain’t a Holocaust-level crime. Critics of the Allies in WWII always end up talking about strategic bombing, because it was the most morally-ambiguous thing that the Western Allies did. But even if one regards the entire idea of strategic bombing as outside the boundaries of the moral (which I do not), killing civilians under enemy control and governance, while attacking heavily-defended cities full of military targets and important economic infrastructure is certainly on a totally different moral plane than machine-gunning unarmed civilians already in your custody due to politics or ethnicity. One can still argue factors such as proportionality and discrimination with regard to Allied strategic bombing, with some justice in some cases, but it was in no way comparable to Treblinka or Katyn.

            • DH says:

              Source Wikipedia? Then it must be true.

              • syonredux says:

                “Source Wikipedia? Then it must be true.”

                Could always read the WIKIPEDIA article’s sources……Here’s a couple….

                Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr, Nicole; Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. Gutachten und Ergebnisse der Dresdner Historikerkommission zur Ermittlung der Opferzahlen.

                Taylor, Frederick (2005). Dresden: Tuesday 13 February 1945. London: Bloomsbury.

          • akarlin says:

            The Allied bombings interrupted what had previously been a rapid secular rise in German armaments in mid-1943. After that time, German war production flatlined.

            Moreover, an increasing share of German war production had to be devoted to AA, to safeguard their industry. It also increasingly de-motorized the German military, making it much less capable of the maneuver warfare it was so exceptionally capable at.

            It is very likely that the Allied bombings significantly shortened the war and helped save 100,000’s lives of Soviet soldiers and civilians under Nazi occupation.

            Truly the Allied bombing campaign was one of the most effectively altruistic actions of the 20th century, along with the atomic bombings of Japan.

            • Highlander says:

              What’s with this “de-motprized?” More like prevented from fully motorizing in the first place. Operation Barbarossa was launched with over 600,000 dray horses. Only around 50 of the Wehrmacht’s 350-odd divisions were motorized.

    • Frau Katze says:

      The carbon monoxide method of killing was developed before the war. It was used on people living on institutions, “a life not worth living.” Some of the relatives disagreed vehemently, but they would, wouldn’t they?

      They tapered the domestic killings off to concentrate on the upcoming war, but the method had worked from a technical aspect and was not forgotten.

      They also used technique of fooling the victims. The domestic unfortunates chosen for killing were told they’d be going on an outing. They had the back of the van sealed off so the driver was safe.

      So the use of engine fumes was a proven technique.

    • Hwite says:

      When a conservative publication hosts a debate about creationism, everyone involved looks bad, the creationists because they’re shown to be dumb, and the anti-creationists because they’re shown to hang out around dumb people. For this reason, having a “rational debate” about Holocaust denial is generally a bad idea.

    • reiner Tor says:

      This was a huge event. Lots of individual false claims were made about it, just as about any other issue. There was a woman who claimed to have survived the 911 attacks in New York:

      Does this in any way disprove that airplanes crashed into the WTC buildings?

  25. ia says:

    I have a question and would appreciate someone more knowledgeable than me answer it, or someone please point me to the literature. How did the Nazis dispose of the bodies? From what I understand there were no dead bodies found, at least not many. From 1942 to June 1945, say, 3 1/2 years, would be roughly 912 days. If over 5 milion people were murdered in that time, that is about 5,500 bodies every day 7 days a week for 3 1/2 years. Bodies don’t burn by themselves. How much fuel does it take to burn one body? Or what other means did they use? How can you kill that many people day after day and leave no trace? I mean the logistics, let alone the daily horror that the same men had to engage in day in day out. Is it physically and pyschologically possible to do this?

    • gcochran9 says:

      You can burn a body using next to no fuel: see Spontaneous Human Combustion.

      They also rot by themselves. Then there are pigs. Or we could talk bulldozers.

      The logistics are trivial. The Mongols killed maybe 10% of the entire human race and I doubt if they often worked up a sweat.

      Next stupid question?

      • ia says:

        If it was easy to make a body spontaneously combust funeral homes would do it. It takes a long time to burn a body.

        That’s a lot of pigs. How many pigs would it take to eat say only half the total per day? Hardly likely.

        If you bulldozed the bodies they would still be recovered and there would be shrines and memorials all over the place.

        • Zimriel says:

          This is eastern Germany and Poland we are talking about, nein? Sausage central? Finding pigs isn’t a problem there.

        • reziac says:

          Being familiar with feeding pigs, I’d guestimate four feeder-sized pigs could consume one average human per day, or maybe a bit more. However a large boar might eat a whole corpse all by himself.

          Bones exposed to lime, damp soil, or sunlight deteriorate much faster than you’d expect. In 3-4 years there’s not much left. When I was feeding my dogs slaughterhouse scrap, I’d burn the surplus bones for heat, and mind you these were big beef bones, somewhere around 10x the mass and density of human bones. With a little encouragement they’d burn for an hour or so at low wood-burning temperatures, and the remainder was friable and had mostly disappeared from the ash pile in about a year, leaving nothing solid but small chips.

      • JamesDW says:


        Believing in the Holocaust requires spontaneous combustion on a massive scale–thats about right.

        Sorry, Greg. Cremating mammals takes energy. The liars who said you could use women as kindling were…not correct. This is provable. I can prove it to you, any cremation business can prove it to you. Dead mammals are not kindling. This is not a subtle fact.

        • gcochran9 says:

          “The human body typically has enough stored energy in fat and other chemical stores to fully combust the body; even lean people have several pounds of fat in their tissues.”

          Like I said – you’re wrong. But then, assholes often are.

          • James GW says:

            Nope. Ask a cremation company. This is not an open question.

          • ia says:

            Greg. I’ve lived in India. I’ve been to Varanasi and have been to the place where they burn bodies. They use a lot of wood. Don’t you think the Indians would know how to burn a body spontaneously if they could?

            There’s also a lot of grease that gets blown around and lands all over the place.It stinks. And they’re burning maybe five-ten bodies a day, I can just about imagine what burning hundreds a day would do.

            • James GW says:

              It’s good we’re getting this out. Greg’s understanding of physics is that dead mammals can serve as kindling.

              That’s what his belief in the Holocaust rests on. Now we know.

              One of us is right and one of us is wrong and the answer can be demonstrated with simple experiments.

              • Misdreavus says:

                One of us is right and one of us is wrong and the answer can be demonstrated with simple experiments.

                Experiments done already.


              • gcochran9 says:

                Mammals can in fact burn. I knew this because of those cases of “spontaneous” human combustion ( which involve cigarettes), also cases of nomads out on the steppe that were known to cook an animal using its own fat as fuel, something they no longer teach young Nazis in school.

                The new rule is that Nazis are welcome on the blog, but only if they have something interesting to say. Von Manstein or Pascual Jordan would pass, but none of the recent flock of idiots would.

              • Misdreavus says:

                I grew up near a swine farm. So that’s how know corpses can burn.

                Although yes, the thermodynamic arguments are compelling too.

            • James GW says:


              Wiernick, the key witness, says he was burning 10,000 corpses at a time in the open air at Treblinka.

              What do you think happened to the forests around Treblinka and who was doing the logging? Answers: nothing and nobody.

              Wiernick is a liar. And when you lie about physical claims you can be found out. It’s that simple. No conspiracy theory. He’s just a lunatic and historians bought his ludicrous tale for whatever reasons. Doesn’t make it true.

              • gcochran9 says:

                energy for combustion of fat: about 37.7 megajoules per kilogram. Everyone has a least a few kilograms of fat: in the brain, for example.

                energy to evaporate water: about 2.5 megajoules per kilogram. People are about 2/3 water.

                Say someone weighs 100 kilograms: 65 kilograms of water, which requires about 162.5 megajoules to evaporate.

                Burn 4.3 kilograms of fat and you have enough energy to evaporate all the water in a typical human body. That’s not even counting far larger amounts of protein, which also will burn (and produce about half as much energy per kilogram)

                You only need enough fuel to start the process.

                Mind you, if they were in a hurry and wanted to use more fuel, there was plenty: coal, coke, wood, etc.

                I’d be perfectly willing to prove this on your person.

        • Dan Bagrov says:

          You know what is pretty good kindling? Coal!

          I wonder if the Germans had any coal…or a massive chemicals and engineering industry…

    • syonredux says:

      “I have a question and would appreciate someone more knowledgeable than me answer it, or someone please point me to the literature. How did the Nazis dispose of the bodies? ”

      Sonderaktion 1005 . Look it up.

  26. JamesDW says:

    Either you’re sane or you’re not.

    Your answer to the following question can certainly provide a definitive answer in one direction:

    “Do you believe the German government killed 900,000 Jews with Soviet tank engine exhaust fumes, buried the bodies but then dug them all up to cremate them on open air pyres–by putting women at the bottom because they have more fat–, and then destroyed all evidence of this operation right before the Soviets showed up?”

    • reinertor says:

      Some Soviet tanks had gasoline engines, like I think the BT-7. I agree it wouldn’t have made a lot of sense to use diesel engines for the task, but even diesel fumes contain some carbon-monoxide, so probably it wouldn’t be impossible either, especially since the victims could’ve just suffocated from lack of oxygen.

      If it was a diesel engine (I haven’t seen any indication that it was, and as I wrote, not all Soviet tank engines were diesels), then it’s not really an argument: while I agree it’d be stupid to use it to murder people, it’d be equally stupid to invent this instead of gasoline engines, so if there’s a Big Holocaust Conspiracy, then that conspiracy would invent a more believable story. Conversely, if I found books which said it was a gasoline engine, would you suddenly believe it?

      • James GW says:

        The point is Greg is not making the argument he thinks he is when he says the logistics are trivial.

        Why would the German government choose to use Soviet tank engines to kill people?

        Why would they bury the bodies to dig them up?

        Why would use open-air cremation?

        Again, plenty of this stuff is outright impossible. The liars of Treblinka just don’t understand the chemistry. Their lies are physically impossible. You cannot just stack bodies outdoors and light them like matches because women have fat. Female mammal corpses are not fuel.

        The “conspiracy theory” is that there was a planned Holocaust despite us recovering virtually everything from a massive bureaucracy and finding no evidence of it. We have the blueprints from the architecture firm that built Auschwitz. No gas chambers. We have Hitler’s orders. No gas chambers. We have the physical sites, right now. No gas chambers. Not a scintilla of evidence and plenty in the opposite direction. That is the insane conspiracy theory.

        To quote Raul HIlberg, the leading Holocaust historian:

        “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”’

        That’s what you have to believe. mind-reading, spontaneous combustion, etc.

        It’s not a conspiracy theory to say a small number of people simply lied about babies being tossed in fire pits, etc. People make shit up all the time. No conspiracy theory needed. Elie Wiesel is a liar who voluntarily went with the Nazi SS from the death camp hospital for death camp inmates to avoid the Soviet “liberation.” Later, he made shit up that didn’t happen and no historian today argues happened. That’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just what happened. He’s the type of guy who makes shit up. Lots of writers like him exist and some of them went to Auschwitz.

        • dearieme says:

          The fact that lies have been told about Auschwitz does not mean that the mass murder of Jews did not happen. The fact that newspapers carry stupid stories about someone “escaping the holocaust” by fleeing Germany in 1933 does not mean that the mass murder did not happen.

        • Your point is that if one anecdote about the holocaust is exaggerated or made up, then all the documented stuff becomes imaginary. That’s obviously not the case, and it obliges me to take nothing you say seriously. It’s a creationist style of thinking: “If Darwin didn’t care to hazard a guess about how eyes evolved, God designed everything.”

          Demographically speaking, there were millions of missing Jews in 1945. Your theory is that they got lost on the way to the drug store? Or what? They were all on vacation that week?

        • Frau Katze says:

          Before the war, Germans use engine fumes to kill people in institutions, I commented on it above. They were in special vans and driven around. The Nazis killed lots of people other than Jews.

          The Jewish organizations had no motive to make that up. Are you going that it didn’t happen?

          • reiner Tor says:

            Your claim is wrong. The Germans didn’t kill anyone using engine fumes before the war, only the commies used it.


            (The wiki article on the German side is pretty weak, so don’t read it, only gave the link for the existence of the method in the USSR before 1939.)

            The Germans started using the gas vans in the early phases of the war on mental patients. Before the war, the Nazis barely killed anybody. (Okay, they killed a few thousand or maybe a few tens of thousands, but that’s basically nothing by Stalinist or later Nazi standards.)

        • saintonge235 says:

          “Why would they bury the bodies to dig them up?”

          They buried them to get rid of them, and cover up the evidence of what they were doing. After discovering the Katyn Massacre, and after the overloaded mass graves were stinking up the countryside, they dug the bodies up to dispose of them more thoroughly.

          As for some of your other “facts,” I’ve seen of them traced down, and they proved to be lies.

          Yes, there was a massive, organized Holocaust. Yes, the Germans deliberately set out to exterminate all the Jews. Yes, people like you are lying about this.

      • James GW says:

        Its not about whether it is “possible” to kill people.

        This is the official narrative. It either happened or it didn’t. Wiernik is THE most important source for the Treblinka story:

        “He remembered the horrors of the enormous pyres, where “10,000 to 12,000 corpses were cremated at one time.” He wrote: “The bodies of women were used for kindling” while Germans “toasted the scene with brandy and with the choicest liqueurs, ate, caroused and had a great time warming themselves by the fire.”[6] Wiernik described small children awaiting so long in the cold for their turn in the gas chambers that “their feet froze and stuck to the icy ground” and noted one guard who would “frequently snatch a child from the woman’s arms and either tear the child in half or grab it by the legs, smash its head against a wall and throw the body away.”[7] At other times “children were snatched from their mothers’ arms and tossed into the flames alive.” However, he was also encouraged by the occasional scenes of brave resistance.[8] In chapter 8, he describes seeing a naked woman escape the clutches of the guards and leap over a ten foot high barbed wire fence unscathed. When accosted by a Ukrainian guard on the other side, she wrestled his machine gun out of his grasp and shot two guards before being killed herself.”

        In chapter 8, he describes seeing a naked woman escape the clutches of the guards and leap over a ten foot high barbed wire fence unscathed.

        In chapter 8, he describes seeing a naked woman escape the clutches of the guards and leap over a ten foot high barbed wire fence unscathed.

        In chapter 8, he describes seeing a naked woman escape the clutches of the guards and leap over a ten foot high barbed wire fence unscathed.

        Witness accounts are, in general, shitty evidence. Some witnesses are worse than others. The most fantastic witness accounts from a pool of millions of people who were uprooted during Europe, six sigma yarn-spinners…their trustworthiness is left as an exercise for the reader.

        • Misdreavus says:

          The livestock industry very frequently needs to dispose of hundreds of thousands of corpses at a single time. (Quarantining an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease,
          Etc.) Sometimes the animals aren’t even slaughtered beforehand. Go ask PETA, they have tons of video footage.

          No you don’t need very much fuel at all. It’s not like cremating your dead great aunt.

          Bitch is you crazy?

        • reiner Tor says:

          There are tons of documentary evidence, just not an order signed by Hitler. The Germans destroyed much of the central documentation anyway, and likely Hitler never put anything about it in writing. The only thing he put in writing was the authorization for killing mentally ill people, given sometime in October 1939, and backdated to September 1, 1939.

          There are some documents showing a giant mass shooting operation underway in the East (occupied USSR territories) killing several hundreds of thousands by December 1941. There are many small documents showing the mass shootings or mass deportation to extermination centers of Jews on hundreds or thousands of localities. Regarding Treblinka, for example, there are documents showing that Jews were transported there, and then clothes and similar items were shipped back. Where did the Jews go? There was no huge camp at Treblinka, so the most likely explanation is that they were killed. Besides eyewitness accounts, there are documents showing that the Polish resistance was warned by Polish railway workers, that Treblinka was a dead end, and masses of Jews were transported there, but they were never transported out, so something must’ve been there to kill them, because no signs of so many Jews living there were apparent. (Like food was not transported there, etc.)

          There are several documents showing the way the Germans handled the deportations, and it showed a total disregard for the lives of Jews. It was not difficult to believe for anyone that the Germans were about to mass murder them.

          A young Hungarian historian who I once met (and is friends with a couple of my acquaintances) recently uncovered a Hungarian document which was prepared in 1943 by the Hungarian military intelligence to the then Hungarian Regent, Admiral Horthy. The document calls the 700-800,000 (including half-Jews) Hungarian Jewish community to be the largest Jewish community in Europe. Interestingly, it asserts that the Jewish community in Poland no longer exists.

          Of course there, were some smaller documents not prepared for heads of state which contain descriptions of many many individual acts of mass murder. There are many documents or photographic evidence showing mass shootings, mass deportations, etc. This is all consistent with the idea of a mass extermination program, and you’d need to prove each of these pieces of evidence false to completely eliminate the holocaust narrative. Obviously, you only need to disprove half of them (a bit more, because there are more central documents where the numbers do add up, like the Korherr report), if you only want to disprove half of the holocaust (so saying like only 3 million people were killed).

          So the evidence seems to be pretty robust. That’s pretty basic stuff.

    • syonredux says:

      Given your focus on using gas to kill people, I take it that you have no problem with the fact that the Nazis also killed lots of Jews with bullets? The Jäger Report makes grim reading….

    • Zimriel says:

      My understanding was that under the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact, the Germans did indeed acquire a lot of Soviet materiel. It was Lend-Lease for the Axis.

    • Frau Katze says:

      To what episode are you referring? The Germans used different in different places. In the occupied part of USSR, they were simply shot and buried.

  27. syonredux says:

    “My point is to imagine if the conditions were in fact more analogous.”

    So, you’re just going to ignore the ideological underpinnings of stuff like the Nazis starving to death 2 million plus Soviet POWs in the Winter of ’41-’42 and the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the Summer, Fall, and Winter of ’41…..OK…..

  28. I defer to the others who know more history and physics than I do. However, I do have something to add from a mental health perspective. Paranoia and belief in (successful, long-concealed) conspiracies arise in a person’s head before they have a target. That is, people believe that SOMETHING IS UP, and are fully convinced of that before they know anything about Bilderberg, or the New World Order, or Nixon’s secret plan to declare martial law, or Queen Elizabeth running the world drug trade. They then adopt whatever is in the air at the time, political, religious, or technological. One cannot argue them into a non-paranoid position, one can only convince them that they are paranoid ABOUT THE WRONG THING and that Shakespeare’s plays were written by somebody else named Shakespeare.

    I appreciate a willingness to be suspicious about things that “everyone knows,” because those are often exactly the things that are social beliefs, poorly evidenced, that some people need to believe. However, in the face of some contrary evidence, one’s opinion should move some. Not necessarily instantly, because we all have loyalty to ideas we already believe. But In the back-and-forth, those who ask good questions must at some point be affected by good answers, even if not complete. If they are not, then that says more about them than their opponents. To take a recent example, it would not be at all surprising if a politician lied about or buried his early childhood and school record. Sometimes it seems that they all do. Even pretending to be born here when one was actually only brought here at a young age, with one American parent, is not out of the realm of possibility, and raising the question is not crazy.; However, when some sort of evidence does start showing up – a newspaper announcement of birth, a birth certificate that looks about as good as anyone else’s – then the fair question must begin to at least recede in the face of evidence. And when the evidence for the proposition turns out to be one aunt who gets other details wrong, then those who choose to demand incontrovertible evidence should at least begin to acknowledge it’s a long shot. If they don’t then it says more about them.

    The reader can apply this back over the exchange above as he wishes.

    • gcochran9 says:

      I was wondering if it might be possible to get Ron interested in Bacon vs Shakespeare, or perhaps Atlantis.

    • Cloveoil says:

      I like some of your coments but I think this is rubbist.

      Soft conspiracy theory is just inquiry. People really do conspire. Hard conspiracy theory is a paranoid umbrella hypothesis, by people obsessed by two things, reductionistic causation and blame.

      • Inquiry responds to evidence.

        Conspiracies happen all the time. Just not successful ones, not so much.

        • Frau Katze says:

          I have noticed just from using the Internet that certain people are susceptible to paranoia. Sometimes it is about something real.

          But one subcategory focuses on political or religious ideas. That simply don’t stand up to inquiry.

          Truly, it is impossible to convince them otherwise. Merely attempting to do so confirms that 1) they’re right and 2) you are likely part of the conspiracy too.

  29. BB753 says:

    Didn’t our gentle host himself, Greg Cochran, use to say that nutty scientists have hundreds of bad ideas but still they may eventually come up with one brilliant discovery?
    I say let Ron Unz research and write and rant all he wants because maybe one day he’ll stumble upon a great idea. Perhaps, ultimately his greatest achievement will be the completion of his humongous digital archive, a new library of Alexandria.

  30. Cantman says:

    The gas chambers are a pointless and questionably practicable complication when we know the Germans killed more Russian PoWs than Jews by starving them inside fences. Doesn’t mean there were none, but it’s intriguing we never actually captured a gas chamber, or anything that looks much like a gas chamber, and that none of the otherwise meticulous German records (which happily document the mass killing of Jews by shooting by anti-partisan units) refers to them.

    Unz is still a crank.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Allied forces didn’t get that far east. Every one was in Poland or Belarus.

      Truly, there’s not much of a mystery.

    • Frau Katze says:

      The Nazis tore down much before the Allies arrived.

      I’m really puzzled by the attitude of some people commenting here. I thought the people here were too intelligent and well read to be edging up to Holocaust denial themselves.

      Try reading the threes book by Richard Evans. You might change your mind.

      • Cantman says:

        Why were they so interested in hiding everything? Did they think the USSR wouldn’t find out about them murdering 10m PoWs, or did they just expect Stalin to care more about Polish Jews?

        • gcochran9 says:

          More like 2-3 million POWs.

        • reiner Tor says:

          They didn’t keep much evidence of having starved to death so many POWs either, but it was easier to hide, for one thing the very high number of POWs was kept a secret by the USSR itself (it was thought to be embarrassing that so many Soviet soldiers surrendered), and they were soldiers anyway whose deaths could be ascribe to having fallen in battle.

          The mass death of a huge civilian population by unnatural means was more difficult to hide.

          • Cantman says:

            The PoW killings were known and discussed diplomatically at the time (the Soviets tried to retroactively sign the Geneva Convention and the Germans tried to trade Stalin’s son for captured generals).

            So what is the point of the secrecy?

            If the Soviets find out they killed the Jews of Poland, they will hate Germans even morerer?

            • reiner Tot says:

              Probably they didn’t want to give easy propaganda points to the enemy. They also needed to maintain some sense of plausible deniability for large segments of their own population. The deal was that a lot of people were content to look the other way, because acknowledging that their own government consisted of mass murderers worse than Stalin would have made it harder for them to keep working for the military victory of that government.

              Some of the people ordering the coverup might also have hoped against hope that in the event of a German defeat they might be able to avoid prosecution by destroying most of the evidence.

        • epoch2013 says:

          “or did they just expect Stalin to care more about Polish Jews?”

          As Hitler and other Nazi ideologues considered communism and Marxism a Jewish project, that probably is correct. Why else would they march all of the Jews from extermination camps to Dachau when the Red Army advanced? That doesn’t make any sense as well.

      • Le Ed says:

        Reading the comments in Greg´s blogg and other bloggs you need to be critical, there are all kinds of nuts out there. The holocaust deniers are idiots. Here is an interesting clip from Lanzman interviewing a SS officer.

      • Maciano says:

        I’m not puzzled. Most of the holocaust deniers/skeptics commenting probably got here through some kind of link on one of their websites. That’s why I never engage them, you can’t convince them of anything. They confuse their idiocy with enlightenment, like all conspiracy theorists. This is the same kind of person who will believe 9/11 was an inside job/controlled demolition, while they saw planes on LIVE TV flying into buildings.

        I’m West-European, the absence of Jews is noticeable; that makes you a lot more aware of the consequences of the Holocaust. Take Amsterdam for example, this city had a big Jewish population before WWII. Very old, too. The nazis killed a whole lot of them. The Amsterdam Jews were gone after the war. Of other Dutch cities with significant Jewish populations (Deventer, Gouda, Winschoten) nothing remains but empty synagogues. This wasn’t secularization. Even when you point this out to Holocaust deniers, they will shrug it off.

        • Cantman says:

          There aren’t many people who deny large numbers of Jews were shot, deported to the East and died of disease and starvation, or fled or escaped deportation and chose not to come back. In that sense, there really aren’t many Holocaust deniers. A Holocaust denier is really just someone who says that the story was embellished. Which it was, and many claims were already rolled back, but then laws were put in place in some countries to prevent it being rolled back further than some point. Maybe that point coincides with the absolute truth, but maybe not.

    • Tanturn says:

      Murderers usually hide the weapon, there’s no mystery there.

  31. M says:

    Looking at the estimates for how many people were killed in various historical atrocities, it’s clear that a lot of pure guesswork is involved, e.g. claims that as many as 15 million people died under Leopold in the Congo. There’s been some success (and controversy) in using family surveys to estimate deaths in wars, see this study, for example. It would be interesting to see the Holocaust studied in this way, i.e. ask survivors and descendants how many people in their family died in the Holocaust and then use family size and other variables to estimate the total number of people killed.

    • Tanturn says:

      The uncertainty in the Congan killings was due to a lack of any censuses. With well conducted censuses as in the case of the holocaust, the death toll if you try to count honestly will vary by plus or minus 10%, never by orders of magnitude.

  32. Pingback: The Knock At The Door | The Z Blog

  33. simontmn says:

    Using his usual analytical methods, Ron has discovered that the Jews of Europe, during WWII, were sent off to live on a farm in the country.<<


  34. The G_Man says:

    From elsewhere:
    David Cole has published his email exchange with Ron Unz. A fine example of rhetoric:

    Z Man, who used to have a good blog and is a quite a good example of how things have totally gone off the rails in the outer right over the past two years, declares that Greg is furiously ‘counter-signalling’ to stop the Jews putting him in prison for saying they have a high IQ. Apparently, writing a one sentence blog post means you are ‘obsessed’ with the Holocaust, whereas writing four trillion word articles full of of non-sequitors and inane rhetorical questions for which the answer is easily available is merely eccentric.

  35. Misdreavus says:

    The hysterical replies to this one-sentence post reveal just how ignorant and delusional the alt right is.

    Then again, they also think “Trump is their guy”.

    • Bob says:

      As opposed to which other candidate from either party that ran? He may not be of my bad white stock, but at least he does not hate us. The left is never short of crackpots either, with all the bodies Stalin & Mao left in their wake they are still sure it will work out this next time.

      We have growth, and he hasn’t started any wars. The Chinese are on notice. We don’t have a wall and i would still like one, but all in all yes he “is my guy”. It is politics and no place for Nancies worried about keeping their skirts clean. It is a rough a ruff and tumble sport and for all his flaws it seems he was made to play it.

      “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”

      • reinertor says:

        Trump started military actions in Syria. Now he’s trapped in the sense that should there emerge any kind of rumors or YouTube videos about the usage of chemical weapons (ostensibly always by Assad – which might or might not be true, but who cares), then he’ll be forced to lob at least something like 150-200 cruise missiles at Assad. (Otherwise it’ll be interpreted as weakness, or whatever.) Since there are Russian forces in Syria at the invitation of the lawful internationally recognized government, it’s basically an invitation for some accident to happen. How many times this could happen without some Russian serviceman killed or Russia feeling the need to do something to save face, which might be miscalculated and result in the death of some American servicemen, and then both sides upping the ante in a stupid race to save face and eventually resulting in some very nervous decision-making in some underground bunkers? So that’s one stupid war (or call it military action) which he initiated himself. Although currently, of course, nothing is happening there, Trump’s hand will be forced by the next YouTube videos, should such emerge.

        • gruffles says:

          Trump started the war in Syria? Are you high?

          • reinertor says:

            Trump started overt US military actions against the internationally recognized lawful government of Syria. Right now each time some YouTube videos showing ostensible victims of chemical weapons emerge from Syria (with accusations against the Assad government), the US is under obligation to lob an ever increasing number of cruise missiles at the Assad government controlled areas. This was not the case under Obama, who was not very enthusiastic about bombing brown peoples (though of course he often did do that, but never against the Assad government). Obama would’ve called for a thorough investigation, and probably nothing would’ve happened. He did nothing earlier, when no Russian troops were yet present. Under Obama the only military actions in Syria were against ISIS, but not against the Assad loyalist forces, and unlike Trump, Obama was more risk-averse vis-à-vis the Russians, too.

            It was Trump personally who demanded military action both in April 2017 (at the behest of the great foreign policy expert Ivanka Trump) and in April 2018. In the latter case reportedly his military advisers talked him out of a more forceful action.

            • Bob says:

              Well it doesn’t appear that reinertor has much interest in becoming more informed. We started bombing in 2014 and put boots on the ground in 2015 . So counting this as a war Trump started seems pretty damn stupid to me. I think President Trump has been very clear that telling the enemy our plans is not his plan, so how this crackpot gets that Trump is obligated to any action is beyond me.

              • reinertor says:

                The war against ISIS is not the same war as the war against Assad. Just like a war against the Viet Kong would’ve been a different war from a war against the South Vietnamese government.

                And Trump made it clear several times (and so it’d be a loss of face for him if he didn’t follow it through) that any chemical weapons usage by Assad would mean further and stronger US military action than the previous one. Even calling for investigations would be considered inappropriate, because it was not done in 2017, nor in 2018. Trump’s previous actions will pretty much force his own hand.

              • Bob says:

                I am not sure why you bang on about the Viet Kong, The RVN fell to armed invasion from the North with weapons supplied from the Soviets, and lack of air support as dictated by the congress weasels of 1975. Being a reliable coalition partner has not always been our best trait as a nation. It would pay our Syrian partners to remember Uncle Sam is a fickle old bastard.

                How did we get this far down the road with Trump and yet you have the notion he prizes precedent over his own view of what is most likely to work? Loss of face? God bless him the the number of people who’s opinion the man gives a rats ass about out side his own family is damn few. It is part of why he is the man for now.

              • reinertor says:

                The Viet Kong was an example. The war against ISIS was a different war from the war against Assad.

                Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that another round of sad YouTube videos of purported chemical weapons usage will result in another round of cruise missile attack on Assad by Trump, and a more severe one than the last time. It was as much as announced in advance, among others by Trump himself.

                Such an escalation cannot continue forever without risking war with Russia. The risk is very low, but it’s increasing each time the scale of the attack increases, and it adds up. There was never a risk of a wider conflagration when Obama started the war against ISIS, this nice feature was added by Trump.

              • Bob says:

                “when Obama started the war”
                There you go was that so hard. Obama took us into the Syrian civil war and consequences followed some of which we did not like.

              • reinertor says:

                You are still wrong. The war against ISIS (which Obama started) is still different from the war against Assad (which Obama refrained from throughout terms in office). Obama started the war against ISIS, which is basically over now. Trump started military action (war might be too strong a word – yet) against Assad, he set the precedent of starting bombing whenever new sad YouTube videos emerge, and he has already announced (and let people appointed by him to announce multiple times) that he’ll indeed throw an ever increasing number of cruise missiles at Assad whenever new sad YouTube videos emerge.

  36. Highlander says:

    “calling for investigations would be considered inappropriate”

    The investigations were done and the first one showed no sign whatsoever of a chemical attack. Your rabbi has misinformed you.

  37. Danny says:

    It’s normal behavior for Christians to burn Jews for the sins of humanitarians.

  38. Pingback: Bryan Caplan is missing a brain module – posttenuretourettes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s