The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Spencer J. Quinn Archive
Don’t Call It the Holocaust
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“You ARE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“Yeah,” said Zaphod, “but don’t shout it out or they’ll all want one.”
“THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox, didn’t you hear I come in six packs?”
—Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In many ways, language is everything when it comes to demographic warfare. The group that can control what other groups are allowed to say has the upper hand because controlling what a person says ultimately leads to controlling what a person thinks. And once you can do that, you can quite easily coerce entire classes and races of people into doing your bidding. The Soviets understood this well, and it was one reason why they were able to manage their oppression of a vast populace for many years.

Whites, as an oppressed class in our current demographic struggles, should be well aware by now of the language restrictions which have been placed on them. For example, referring to blacks as “Negroes” or Asians as “Orientals” is considered not just out of date, but offensive. Calling a black person a “nigger” is practically grounds for murder these days. But what way of referring to Whites is analogous to this? Nothing, really. Recently, a Jew named Donald Moss announced from his perch within the American Psychoanalytic Association that whiteness is a parasitic condition to which there is no cure. Can’t get too much more defamatory than that. And did Dr. Moss get in any trouble for offending White people? Of course not. After all, the Nation of Islam has been calling White people blue-eyed devils for years and getting away with it.

As a result of this pervasive abuse, I believe it is time for Whites to go on the offensive on the language front in the great demographic war. This means that we should produce a list of terms that we should never allow anyone, including other Whites, to say in our presence. Racial insults, of course, should top this list. Under no circumstances should we allow anyone to use the terms “redneck,” “cracker” or other racial epithets in a derogatory way. These should be met with a barrage of accusations of racism, followed by charges of hypocrisy and whatever else the circumstances call for. Basically, this should mark the permanent end of the conversation with those who think they can defame White people and get away with it.

But these are obvious cases. Less obvious is the derogatory term “Nazi” which I discuss in my 2019 Counter-Currents article “The Other N-Word.” I think, however, the most potent weapon at our disposal is the one which can turn the tables on the most potent weapon of our enemies—that is, the insidious demographic weapon known as “The Holocaust.” Not the historical event, mind you, but the demographic weapon which was designed to weaken the morale and spirit of an entire people through guilt, propaganda, and lawfare. The aggressive application of language which I outline below can work regardless if one believes the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s happened or didn’t happen, or were exaggerated or not. This is about controlling language, not arguing history.

Any time a racially conscious White has a serious discussion with a Jew—or, really, anyone on the Left—they need to interrupt their interlocutor as soon as “the Holocaust” is mentioned. There are several ways to approach this. One could take the snarky Jonathan Bowden tack and ask not-so-innocently which holocaust they’re referring to. From Western Civilization Strikes Back, pages 97–98:

The deputy chairman of the party that I was in was asked about the Shoah on a Channel Four program. And he said, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?”

Silence. A very radical statement for a contemporary BNP leader. Silence. Silence.

A clever rhetorical twist, that.

I would prefer, however, to keep things on the up-and-up. When they say “the Holocaust,” we know that they are referring to the Jewish Holocaust—which is what it should be called—and it would be best if we didn’t pretend not to know this unless one has a talent for witty repartee and can handle oneself in these kinds of conversations. So in response to any reference to “the Holocaust,” a racially aware White person should resist the urge to make a Douglas Adams reference and instead politely inform their interlocuter that such a term is racist and evinces an offensive form of ethnic chauvinism.

Why? (They will invariably find the accusation shocking and in all innocence inquire “Why?”). Because by employing the definite article “the” and the capital “H,” the term’s user implies that there is only one holocaust. All other holocausts are, to borrow an expression from Jean-Marie Le Pen, a “just a detail in history.” For example, the Bengal Famine. I’m sure any Jewish person using the term “the Holocaust” would be interested to discover how Winston Churchill requisitioned grain from India during the Second World War, and thereby caused the starvation of up to three million Indians in the Bengal province of British India in 1943. That’s a holocaust. Referring to what happened to the Jewish diaspora in Europe from 1941 to 1945 as “the” holocaust is an insult to all the people who died in the Bengal Famine and every other holocaust before and since.

And if the person hasn’t scurried away or shrieked “anti-Semite!” by this point, then one can bring up the atrocities of the early Soviet period, such as the terror famines, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. That’s between 17 and 18 million lives disposed of, according Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror. Throw in all the victims of the gulag up to 1939, and you have millions more. These were all holocausts, no? In fact, the point could be made that the Soviets were the ones who committed “the Holocaust” since they killed far more people than the Nazis did and with less reason. This last part is crucial. Whatever atrocities the Nazis committed, they at least had the excuse of being at war and forced to deal with a hostile population of Jews prone to sabotage and guerilla warfare. In fact, by 1944 they were at war with three superpowers on at least as many fronts. The Soviets had no such excuse since they drenched their countryside in blood in the years between the Russian Civil War and the Second World War—in other words, peacetime.

And if by luck or persistence the conversation continues, then one can bring up the names of all the Jews who contributed to “the Holocaust”—this one and only Holocaust—upon millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, and others prior to when most Jews even knew what a concentration camp was. Readers of this site probably don’t need an itemization of such a list. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together is a great source. But there are many others.

At this point, there can be no more conversation. We have flipped the script, so to speak. We have trumped the Jewish victim card with an even higher one of our own. We have overwhelmed their most powerful weapon with an even greater one of our own. All because of our control of language. All because we don’t let them or anyone else get away with calling the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s “the Holocaust.” All because we make explicit what Jews have for so long kept implicit with their use the definite article and that dreaded capital “H”—that Jews believe that Jewish lives are worth more than non-Jewish lives. Once we expose this, they have no defense to charges of racism which will naturally follow.

Of course, nothing is this simple in life, and nothing will change in our favor overnight. But if enough Whites were to take this relatively easy tack in the public sphere—and not just on social media, televised news, or on CSPAN, but in everyday discussions with family, friends, and colleagues—then the Jews and their allies will be forced onto the defensive for a change. They will face a rare reversal in the demographic wars. And after that, who knows what could happen?

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Notsofast says:

    you did not mention the on going semetic holocaust of the nakba, soon to celebrate it’s diamond jubilee. as long as israelis are allowed to misdefine the meaning of the words semetic and holocaust they will be able to control the narrative.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  2. I’ve begun a similar approach when slavery is brought up. As with the jewish holocaust, modern discourse is focused entirely on a single aspect of a form of servitude practiced in every nation, by every people, for longer than recorded time. The intellectual blinders fixed in place by government run school systems prevent us, as a society, to deviate from the typically referenced white ownership of black slaves in America centuries ago. But lets say we ignore the slavery practiced in every other nation that’s risen and fallen since grain merchants first decided to leave markings on clay tablets to keep track of inventory and debts, and focus entirely on America. And when I say America, I mean only North America, as I’m sure the Aztec and Incan and Mayan beliefs on freedom and wages for labor would be immaterial to the discussion. Speaking only of North America the discourse again must be sharpened further. Did you mean the slavery practiced between waring native tribes? No? Did you mean the practice of indentured servitude of whites? No? Were you referring to the native tribes who bought slaves from white settlers? No? Did you mean the Asian coolies? No? Did you mean the freed black slaves who bought slaves of their own? No? Did you mean the importing of slave made good in modern America? No? Is it the current sale of sex slaves, right here, in your country, being done as we speak, what you’re interested in discussing? No? Ah, now we’ve narrowed it down a bit. By slavery, you don’t mean all slavery, or most slavery, or modern slavery, but the very small percent of whites who owned slaves centuries ago. Its a good thing you don’t want to look too deep into which groups did most of the buying and selling of slaves, that might make you look anti-semitic.

    • Agree: Badger Down
  3. A few additional points. According to the Bible, God loves holocausts.

    Further, according to the Bible (Genesis), in the era of Abram, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, only a tiny, tiny proportion of Semites were Jews, or were descendants of any of those four.

    And according to the Bible, and history, and the very existence of the Septuagint already before 100 BC, post-Alexander only a tiny, tiny proportion of Jews were Semites.

    So the scream of “anti-Semitism” is racist deception, nothing else.

    And we know that in the modern world the most atrocious real anti-Semites, killers of the real Semites of Palestine, are the Jews.

  4. Fifty years ago, the word holocaust was always prefixed with nuclear. There were two of those in the 1940s.

  5. @Notsofast

    Stop writing like a Jew. Use the shift key. Like a normal, civilized person.

    • Agree: Etruscan Film Star
    • Replies: @Notsofast
  6. Weaver says:

    I like the spirit of this, but I like the term “redneck.” “Cracker” can be said to be bad. “Nazi” is definitely an offensive word; “national socialist” is the appropriate alternative.

    Redneck/rooinek is a very British expression. Nationalism ties to the poor and middle class, working class; I’m a nationalist. I like the term. If someone wants to accuse me of not being bourgeois cosmopolitan, why… yes, and thank you.

    “Redneck” ties me to South Africans and Aussies, also likely to Kiwis. (I’ve met Kiwis who don’t know they’re called “Kiwis.” Maybe this word is outdated?) And of course, “redneck” ties us all to the sacred British Isles.

  7. Lochearn says:

    We could add: “Two rough estimates by scholars of the numbers of just one group – black slaves held over twelve centuries in the Muslim world – are 11.5 million and 14 million, while other estimates indicate a number between 12 and 15 million African slaves prior to the 20th century” (wikipedia).

    We could also add Berber or North African white slavery as detailed in the book White Slavery in the Barbary States by Charles Sumner. From the blurb: “… this astonishing book provides a fascinating insight into a period of history now largely suppressed from view by political correctness-the time when at least one million Europeans were seized and sold into slavery by the nonwhites of North Africa.”

  8. After all the Jews inside the gas chamber had been gassed to death, they opened the door and dragged out the first dead body by hand. Then they dragged out the second dead body. Then they dragged out the third. They kept doing this until the gas chamber was empty. Then they forced (or tricked) the next group of Jews to go inside the gas chamber. They were gassed to death too and their dead bodies were dragged out by hand also. They kept doing this over and over. The dead bodies were put in big piles and burned and reduced to ash and bone and then the bones were crushed up and then the ash and crushed up bones were taken away and disposed of. And that’s how the Nazis killed six million Jews.

    • Agree: Catdompanj
    • Replies: @DDearborn
  9. zionist: blah blah blah The Holocaust.
    me: I don’t give a shit about your holocaust.
    zionist: You’re an anti-semite.
    m: Thanks for noticing.

    • LOL: Ann Nonny Mouse
  10. Notsofast says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    you mossad troll, you’ll do anything to deflect the narrative from the truth. how about making a comment about the content of what I said. GFY

  11. People can also use this in the never ending covid “crisis”. The pushers of the covid shot are always calling it a vaccine, which it isn’t. This gives it legitimacy in the minds of the misinformed because they automatically let their guard down associating it with their childhood vaccinations of polio and whooping cough. Never call it the covid vaccine, always call it the shot or inoculation to take away the legitimacy that the term, “vaccine” gives it.

    • Replies: @RogerL
  12. After all, the Nation of Islam has been calling White people blue-eyed devils for years and getting away with it.

    Yeah, but, being devilish is just SO BAAAD. Especially this time of year.

  13. @Notsofast

    For the last two thousand years, writing from right to left has been a mark of Satanic influence. In more secular terms, right-to-left is better suited for stonecarving, left-to-right for handwriting. Which is more advanced?

    Minuscules were one of the great inventions of Christendom, but they were meant to augment, not replace, majuscules.

    Nakba is just Holocaust in the other direction. A Semitic obsession, it seems. Christian Palestine was destroyed by heretical invaders from the east; Israelis are just doing the mopping up. (How’s your Aramaic, by the way?)

    As for Mossad, commenters on this site are rather resistant to my hypothesis that their infiltration of the ACLU led to the Abingdon, Murray, Griswold, Epperson, and Roe decisions in the US, and other organizations in Canada which led to Morgentaler. Which is certainly more plausible than Mossad demolishing the Twin Towers with Osama as their stooge.

    • Troll: Notsofast
    • Replies: @Notsofast
  14. Yes! Let there be no doubt: the Jewish use of the term “The Holocaust” is offensive, racist, and reeks of semitism. It is denial of the humanity of everyone else.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  15. Calling a black person a “nigger” is practically grounds for murder these days.

    I guess that explains why blacks kill each other these days.

  16. @Badger Down

    Agree. The correct word is Nakba. However, the question of whether the Nazis committed The Nakba to the extent war propaganda and enemy propaganda asserts needs investigation. Back to codoh.

  17. @Notsofast

    you mossad troll, you’ll do anything to deflect the narrative from the truth. how about making a comment about the content of what I said. GFY

    It seems that the only thing you can bring yourself to capitalize involves “fuck.”

    Have you looked into anger management therapy?

    • Troll: Notsofast
  18. RogerL says:
    @Joe Paluka

    Great suggestion – be even more blunt and refer to it as an experimental RNA inoculation.

    Several time in my life I stepped on a rusty nail, and my tetanus vaccine shots probably saved my life. Comparing that vaccine to an experimental RNA inoculation is like comparing an apple to an elephant.

    When I was a kid a neighbor kid died from polio, so I think polio vaccines are good idea too.

    An experimental RNA inoculation is a really terrible idea.

  19. This means that we should produce a list of terms that we should never allow anyone, including other Whites, to say in our presence. Racial insults, of course, should top this list.

    That is a self-defeating strategy: owning the libs on muh racism, only reinforces the notion that racism is a bad thing, rather than perfectly natural and healthy.

  20. Notsofast says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    your last sentence in your senseless comment will have more commenters agreeing with me than you.

    anyway to add a mossad troll button?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  21. @Notsofast

    How do you explain the undemocratic Roe and Morgentaler decisions? How do you explain the ACLU’s early and intense support of Planned Parenthood, a criminal organization which intended to smuggle contraband into Connecticut?

    These decisions cost nearly 75,000,000 North American lives. You think that’s an accident?

    Can you tell us, with a straight face, that this isn’t the face of evil?

    In a Christian country, he would have died in prison.

  22. Notsofast says:

    don’t look at palestine, don’t look at israel, don’t look at 9/11, look only at the aclu, the greatest threat to our fine democracy. if it walks like a troll, talks like a troll, and smells like a troll, it must be a troll.

    • Replies: @DDearborn
  23. I don’t think any reasonable person would care less about your objection to the term “the Holocaust”. The objection of the term as stated here merely shows the person doing the objection to be an obsessive weirdo. No one should kid himself otherwise.

    The author of this piece should take this to heart. This article is not very interesting and shows the author to be a weirdo. Nothing else.

  24. DDearborn says:


    The problem with your description, assuming it was not actually sarcasm is its failure to deal with the actual evidence which directly refutes the “official jewish holocaust narrative” that 6 Million Jews were killed in the camps. None of this evidence has ever been refuted therefore constitutes prima fascia evidence that it was a physical impossibility to “gas” even 600,000 people in those camps during the war, let alone 6 million.

    1)The tiny gas chambers themselves were not actually air tight meaning that in short order the gas would have killed everyone down wind of the chambers not just those repeatedly “dragging” bodies out. In fact, absent any wind, gas will disperse in all directions meaning that essentially over time everyone in the camps would have died from the gas. Obviously, none of this happened.

    2)Then there is the problem of the tiny size of the Gas Chambers which were far to small to handle the numbers necessary to even reach 1 million let alone 6. And that assumes gas chambers that were completely air tight and could be safely decontaminated over and over in a matter of a few minutes for 5 years. Just where did they vent all that poison gas….

    3)There is n0 forensic evidence of mass graves that has ever been found(Millions of bodies would have literally created mountains of evidence either above or below ground.) And given that by 1941 Germany was already rationing gas to the point that its front line Armies began to effected, there simply wasn’t the fuel available to cremate even a fraction of numbers claimed by Jews. Nor were there even remotely enough physical facilities to handle the flow of more than a small percentage of those people.

    4)Every single one of the alleged “holocaust camps” were in fact WORK CAMPS. And given Germany’s massive labor shortage all prisoners were made to work. In order to carry out even a fraction of the claimed 6 Million every camp would of had to literally dedicate its entire workforce to that effort. Well documented physical evidence in the form of paper trails, not to mention the actual work product prove without question that these camps were in fact producing goods for the war effort in large numbers…

    5) All the legitimate evidence to date clearly demonstrates that 4 things were responsible for the majority of all deaths in these work camps(not just Jews, but hundreds of thousands of other people died in them as well)
    a. Overwork
    b. Malnutrition, particularly later in the war.
    c. Typhoid and other infectious disease common at the time
    d. Lack of medical care which would have still been primitive in those days

    Further proof that the “official” jewish Holocaust is a lie is the fact that all four of these killers effected ALL the prisoners in the camp equally other than the capos who enjoyed special treatment. The majority of capo’s in most of the camps were jewish….

    It is never anti-Semitism to present these indisputable FACTS. But it does explain why Jews went to such extraordinary lengths to make it illegal to discuss the facts, let alone question the jewish version of the Holocaust in public in many countries…Clearly, the idea that “truth” can only be validated by open, public, vigorous and repeated investigation and scrutiny represents a threat to the jewish narrative.

    It is important to note the similarities between the “holocaust” and “9-11” both of which demand you suspend all logic, critical thinking, common sense and the physical evidence in order to accept. And when the facts are subjected to logic, rational thought, critical thinking and common sense, it instantly becomes clear both are fictional “official” narratives fabricated by zionist Jews to serve jewish interests in general and israel in particular…

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  25. anarchyst says:

    As I have previously stated in other forums, the “holocaust™” engineering just doesn’t add up.
    None of the claims that the “holocaustianity™” advocates make are true and can easily be refuted and debunked using basic engineering, logistical and scientific principles.

  26. DDearborn says:


    The ACLU was from it’s inception to this day a zionist front for treasonous agents working directly with and for the State of Israel

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Spencer J. Quinn Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism