Playing Whack-a-Mole With Jonnie Hargis

[The following is a contribution from Andrew E. Mathis.]

In the past few months, Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis has ventured outside the confines of his CODOH cesspit to debate the finer points of race and economics at Unz.com -- as well as to drive traffic (he hopes) to his vanity Web site. As can be seen below, Jonnie is currently posting at Unz under the name "BobbyBeGood":

http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/BobbyBeGood

Fans of Mr. Hargis and/or of this blog will recognize the characteristic style.

Coincident with Jonnie's appearance at Unz, I began posting at CODOH under the name "Thames Darwin." Although the original identity of this particular sockpuppet was unreconstructed National Socialism, the geniuses at CODOH sussed me out (indeed, perhaps thanks to months of Jumble solving on the comics page, more quickly than the last time). Since then, I have been on moderated status at CODOH, which is fairly ridiculous given how long I've been posting there now. I have also been posting at Unz under my real name.

(Perhaps at a later date, I'll write something up on the matter of the intersection of "race realism" and anti-Semitism.)

Also putting in a brief but fruitful appearance at Unz has been CODOH member and YouTube commenter "Mulegino". Perhaps angry at his lack of performance at Unz, Jonnie stepped up his game this morning at CODOH. In a thread entitled "Jewish 'Genius' Unable to Create a Creditable Narrative" begun by Mulegino:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9659

I posted the below, and it was initially approved, but I found it deleted less than an hour later. Off-topic? You be the judge.

Mulegino1 wrote: "In addition, after the war against the Soviet Union began,  new territories to the east opened up for resettlement. To facilitate the objective of the "Final/Total Solution to the Jewish Question", European Jews were sent to the new territories for resettlement. Unfortunately, outbreaks of typhus and other communicable diseases had caused most of the fatalities in the German camp system and the German authorities had adopted measures to combat such outbreaks of disease - particularly typhus, which was spread by body lice.  One of these sanitary measures involved  delousing: men and women and children internees were separated. Often their heads were shaved.  They then were led to shower baths where they undressed and were given towels and soap and a shower. Their clothing was subsequently deloused in state of the art gas chambers, many of which used the common pesticide Zyklon-B, a pesticide designed for safe fumigation of buildings or clothing and bedding. Subsequent to this, the men were subsequently sent to different locations where their labor was required. The women and children were interned in camps, where the women often worked as well. Due to the nature and chaos of war, many men never saw their women and children again, and many women and children saw their men again."

It seems to me that, in what is otherwise a plausible counter-narrative, this is where your argument runs aground. I've bolded two sentences in particular -- Jews sent for resettlement and many families being split up. You'd think a couple of things would nevertheless have happened in the meantime. First, given 70 years having elapsed since the end of the war, you'd think that the majority of families would have been reunited at this point, particularly given the ease with which one can track down people on the Internet over the last decade or two. Second, you'd think there'd be considerable documentation of the arrivals of hundreds of thousands of Jews in formerly and soon-to-be-again Soviet territory. You'd think we'd know -- again some 70 years later -- to precisely which territory these tens of thousands of Jews had been deported.

The mere claim that "Jews went where Jews are" misses the point by at least an order of magnitude. If revisionists want the "transit thesis" to gain any traction, you'll need to establish where these Jews were sent and you'll need to show that hundreds of thousands were actually sent there. This latter point is really kind of the "transit thesis" Waterloo, and here's why. Population transfers were extraordinarily common in the Stalin-era Soviet Union, and there are records of these transfers. What's missing among those records is evidence of hundreds of thousands of European Jews being where they once weren't or even of the Soviet Union absorbing said Jews when reconquering these territories. If you want to maintain that they went elsewhere, then you need to rectify the numbers -- again, we're at least an order of magnitude off, but maybe two.

A final point: For the transit thesis to work, it also needs to abide by common sense. I.e., the Germans are not going to be deporting hundreds of thousands of potentially hostile Jews into the Soviet sphere of influence because it is likely those same Jews are going to take up arms against Germany. (Nevermind the questionable wisdom of deporting these populations into or across an active front in the first place.) The only transit thesis that makes even a small bit of sense is deportation to the far reaches of German occupied territory. The problem that such a thesis must then face is what becomes of those Jews as Germany begins to cede territory in the face of Soviet counter-offensive. Because guess what -- we don't have any evidence of that either, i.e., thousands of Jews formerly deported into the far reaches of German-occupied Soviet territory being evacuated west with the German withdrawal. And note: Elie Wiesel being evacuated west from Auschwitz doesn't count because he was never deported into German-held Soviet territory.

And if this post doesn't see the light of day, then I guess we'll know why?

Addendum: Hargis was also busted for using multiple sockpuppets. The site owner wrote:

 [Okay, you're that slippery fellow who'd been going around changing his name for almost every comment, sometimes in rapid succession on the same thread. I've repeatedly warned you that I find this sort of sock-puppetry completely unacceptable. However, I'm prepared to give you one last chance. Henceforth, your one and only handle shall be "BobbyBeGood" and if you start to use any other handles, I'll just summarily trash any of your future comments I encounter. So think it over and behave yourself.]

Hargis replied: 

Understood, Ron. Please note that ‘BobbyBeGood’ has been consistent in only using that name.

You really should build a ‘guidelines’ section where issues like ” sock-puppetry” and any other “slippery” behaviors are defined in advance. Heretofore that has not been done, hence my use of different names. I mean, who knew?

I also suspect others here would appreciate knowing the rules in advance rather than on an ad hoc, ‘I don’t like your views so I will makes rules ex post facto in order to censor them’, basis.

I would appreciate you allowing this reply to be seen. I’m more than willing to play ball, but do not appreciate being dramatically demonized without my replies to your attacks being viewable. What’s fair is fair.