"Dalton" (again) shows what makes him tick

"White Nationalism", from that I have seen of it, is the domain of somewhat-less-than-recommendable individuals like Greg Gerdes – losers who seek to console themselves by taking pride in their "White" ethnic background and attacking all perceived threats to supposed "White" interests. The largest such threat is obviously held to emanate from Jews, who for some reason are not considered to be "White". Hence "White Nationalists" tend to be rabid, paranoid anti-Semites.



One of these gentlemen – a namesake of Gerdes, though apparently one with a slightly higher IQ – recently posted an article in which he argues that Holocaust "Revisionism" (also known as Holocaust denial) is not necessary to "White Nationalism" and may even distract from activities or arguments that this movement should pursue in order to curb the supposed pernicious power wielded by Jews against "Whites".

What lends this showpiece of benighted fanaticism more than just amusement value is that our old friend "Thomas Dalton, PhD" responded to it, in an article published on "the White network".

"Dalton" touts the supposed benefits that "Whites" may derive from "Revisionism", the most important of which is supposed to consist in reducing the Jewish death toll at the hands of the Nazis to "a mere blip—one percent of the roughly 50 million deaths in World War II", and thus "effectively" destroying what he calls "the leading guilt-tool" wielded by Jews against "Whites".

Nothing new there – one need only read the blogs collected under the label "Dalton", especially the follow-up of Kevin Barrett’s Interviews on American Freedom Radio on 24.04.2010, to realize how ridiculously hollow "Dalton"'s pep-talk is.

What nevertheless makes this pep-talk worth a brief note is that it removes any doubt that may eventually have remained about where "Dalton" comes from and what motivates his "Revisionism".

We learn that "Dalton" advocates "a truly Euro-American white nationalism", which "must be free to self-govern, away from dominating control by Jewish or other near-white ethnicities".

We learn that "Dalton" sees people like the contributors of this blog as "ideological lackeys" of the Jews, who "pose a special challenge to White Nationalism" and shouldn't be left "off the hook".

We learn that "Dalton" sees Jews as sinister scoundrels who "don’t just work against whites; they work against everyone". He invokes several perceived authorities on the matter of Jewish evil:

One of the earliest recorded western commentaries on the Jews—that of Hecateus, circa 300 BC—noted that “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.” This is documented in the Old Testament, and in the (self-)view of the Jews as God’s chosen. Several early commentators, most notably the great Roman historian Tacitus, wrote about the Jews’ “hatred of the human race.” [...] In 1771, Voltaire wrote of the Jews, “they are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts… I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” We should take Voltaire’s warning to heart.

Last but not least, we learn that "Dalton" sees the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany (or at least the prewar aspects thereof) as "a nationalist success story":

In the period of just six years, from 1933 to 1939, and amidst a global depression, Germany rose from a ruined, bankrupt nation to the strongest on Earth. The Holocaust—the real event—is a nationalist success story. Rein in Jewish-controlled banks and capitalist enterprises, restore national integrity to the media, expel Jews from the seat of governmental power…and your nation will flourish. What better lesson could revisionism provide?

Such unmistakable anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi bigotry is expressed by the same individual who, in the Introduction of his book (discussed in the blog Old Herrings in a New Can: Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust (1)) presented himself to his gullible readers as an impartial analyst, with the following claims:

I intend to present an objective, impartial look at this debate. I will discuss the latest and strongest arguments on both sides, examine the replies, and offer an unbiased assessment. This is a challenging task, to say the least, but I believe that I am reasonably well suited for it. Unlike the vast majority of writers on the Holocaust, I am not Jewish—either by religion or ethnicity; nor are any of my family members. I am not of German descent. No one in my immediate family suffered or died in World War II. I am neither Muslim nor fundamentalist Christian, so I have no religious bias. My background is as a scholar and academic, having taught humanities at a prominent American university for several years now. I have a long-standing interest in World War II, and in the present conflict in the Middle East. In the end, whether I have succeeded in offering an objective analysis of this debate will be for the reader to judge.

"Revisionists" are known for their hypocrisy in claiming that they are objective researchers trying to establish historical facts. Mr. "Dalton" has added a further touch of cynicism to that hypocrisy.