I have gone on record as saying that the specific details regarding the Holocaust are not something I take much interest or concern in. This is not an admission of denial or even revisionism, only that one can recognize the Holocaust for what it was without resorting to atrocity fetishism. In the case of the Holocaust, it has been mythologized and used as the justification for any number of political persecutions and restrictions on thought and speech. I do not intend to make light of the Holocaust, but as a mythology and ideological hermeneutic, the Holocaust has the potential to be more harmful and deadly than the happenings in German controlled regions of Europe from 1939-1945. This should not be a surprise, since mythologies provide the foundation for both culture and ideology, and as a mythology the Holocaust remains as real and lived today in the Western psyche as though it were still ongoing. Holocaust remembrance is foisted upon us, not to remember the victims of Nazi Germany, but to illicit feelings of shame and guilt in Western Europeans and those descended from them. The Holocaust is not taught as a German crime but as a Western one, one that all Europeans should feel guilt for and seek to atone for. There are two countries where it most makes sense to house Holocaust museums: Germany and Israel. A case could also be argued for Poland and Austria. But does Canada require a Holocaust museum? Does the United States? For Canada, a Holocaust museum would makes as much sense a Rwandan Genocide museum. We are neither the victims nor the perpetrators of said genocides, so although I do not think such museums should be banned, I question the prudence and purpose of building them in the first place. Why do they need to exist and what interests of the average Canadian do they serve?
The Holocaust is presented as the natural end of European identity and nationalism. If ever whites protest their position in society in reference to their racial identity, then the media will inform us that another genocide will soon be visited upon the world. It is silly to say these things in such a way, but it is true. The Holocaust and accusation of Nazism have been used to bludgeon nationalist movements for decades, alas the Holocaust as a hermeneutic has its limitations. After all, it was primarily nationalist white Europeans who ended the Holocaust, so calling their descendants Nazis soon becomes laughable, once the initial shock of the accusation fades. It is difficult to feel guilt for something your people did not do and died to stop. Also, with the Holocaust being a German endeavour, the Canadian, British, and French peoples are less inclined to internalize guilt for this action. Yet, our Canadian government affirms the existence of white privilege and by extension white guilt for the sins of all white people, not just those of our own nation. Alas, to really affirm the shared guilt of all white people, all white nations must be shown to be guilty of their own personal “holocausts”. This affirms that deep down, all white people are the same, possessing the same innate defects; even though a given people may not be responsible for the Holocaust enacted by Germans, since they have their own they share in the common guilt of being a genocidal race.
Every white nation has thus been given a Holocaust narrative. The Americans have slavery. The French and English have colonialism. The Belgians have the Congo, the Spanish have their civil war and Franco. Canada has the residential school system. Every predominantly white country has its own atrocity myth to perpetuate a local and universalized white guilt. Since Canada, America and so on have sinned, we therefore cannot criticize Germany for the Holocaust because in the end, all white people are the same and are naturally predisposed to oppressing and exterminating non-whites, and thus we all stand guilty and must atone. Yet, the people who decry said holocausts are silent regarding the history of non-whites engaging in similarly acts. When one looks at a history of peoples, we can see that “holocausts” are not infrequent and neither are they perpetrated exclusively by a single racial group.
Recently, Canadian media has been pontificating about the alleged discovery of 215 buried children found at a former residential school in British Columbia. Firstly, such a discovery is horrific, but again what is equally horrific is how the media uses such a discovery. They are literally standing on the graves of children to reiterate the anti-white and anti-Canadian narrative to condemn Canada collectively for the supposed crimes of specific individuals that have not even been investigated yet. However, whenever given the opportunity to attack Canadians, our media, state-funded and private, never miss the opportunity. Personally, I have nothing against the idea of the residential school system. The Canadian government believed that it would be in the best interest of the natives if they were assimilated into broader Euro-Canadian culture. If left to their own devices, it was believed that they would remain an underachieving and impoverished minority, which the reserve system seems to have proven. It could even be argued that the residential school system represents an idealistic and liberal view on human races, meaning that given the right environment and education, all people are equally capable of achieving within a European society. Alas, the utter failure of the residential schooling system, as either a means to facilitate assimilation or even to be remembered in a positive light, would seem to indicate how errant such liberal views on race are. The supposed sin of the residential school system is not the fault of nationalists, but the liberals who believed in the objective equality of all peoples. It is the sins of their own intellectual peers that they foist on us to justify a collective Canadian and white guilt.
If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation
Bitcoin: bc1q3q8qaff3d2zllj3yx7jtszrs349xv4av2r8mg3
Ethererum: 0x072E4EE9268AfAA436A8f4BBdAF775b28007eCD4
God, King, and Nation 
Do ya really have to put catholic religious on the photos mate? You should realize numerous Catholics helped play major roles in the fight against the nazis. For example St. Maximilian Kolbe who died a martyr in the camps after giving up his life for another victim who was to be killed. This is kinda biased. You should realize that atheists see this and they don’t care about the differences between orthodoxy and Catholicism, they will attack both churches. They actually recently burned down an orthodox church in canada. On orthodoxy though…the orthodox church is kinda hypocritical. The Fathers like St. John Chrysostom, Basil and others all accepted the papacy yenno? Yet the orthodox rejects the papacy and yet follow the fathers who accepted the papacy. The Church from the very beginning was governed by the Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, all the other Bishops being in union with and subject to the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. At times the Bishops met together in Councils for more important deliberations, and the decisions of these Councils were acknowledged as binding provided they were approved and sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome as supreme head of the Church. We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.”
LikeLike
The reasons were chiefly political. According to the most recent research work of Jugie, Grumel, Amann, and Dvronik, the schism commenced by Photius in 867 would never have happened had it not been for political rivalry concerning jurisdiction over Bulgaria. In 861 the Bulgarians were converted by missionaries from Constantinople. In 866 Pope Nicholas I. appointed Bishops for the Bulgarians in order to bring them under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarchate of the West rather than have them under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The motive to maintain Rome’s political authority over Constantinople was not absent, and from this point of view the move was a grave political mistake. The Greeks resented it, and Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote a reprehensible letter to the Pope in 867 in which he condemned the Catholic Church, and made various charges against her even from the doctrinal point of view. The undeniable provocation did not justify his doing this. The Pope excommunicated Photius, who retaliated by excommunicating the Pope, and the schism commenced. Photius made peace with Pope John VIII., and was duly recognized as Patriarch of Constantinople; and the reconciliation endured so long as Photius lived. But trouble had been set on foot; and intermittent difficulties with Rome continued until 1054 when Michael Cerularius, the then Patriarch of Constantinople, renewed the break with Rome, moved by sheer ambition to be universal Patriarch over the whole Church. He won the Emperor to his side by appealing to national pride in the political importance of Constantinople.
LikeLike
Christ declared definitely that His Church would be one fold under one shepherd. And your duty would be to inquire as to the relative merits of the Pope and of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in their claims to be head of the Church. Both cannot be. But, as a matter of fact, you cannot speak of one Greek Orthodox Church with the Patriarch of Jerusalem as its head. The Rev. C. J. MacGillivray, in his book, “Through the East to Rome,” 1931, says that, as an Anglican clergyman, he spent some years in the East amongst the Greeks and Syrians, working for the reunion of Greeks and Anglicans. He found it impossible, and in the end became a Catholic. On page 91 of his book he writes: “To begin with, there is no such thing as the ‘Orthodox Church.’ There is a group of some 15 or 16 independent Churches, recognizing no common authority, but loosely connected as being all ‘Orthodox.’ And again, if you leave out Russia, the whole number of the Orthodox is exceedingly small; and the Russian Church was only held together by the power of the State. Compared to the Roman Catholic Church the so-called Orthodox Church is just a collection of fossilized and moribund fragments of what was once a great and living Church. Indeed it seems to me to be a great object lesson in the disastrous consequences of abandoning the rock on which the Church of Christ was built. The Orthodox Church has ceased to be a living teacher. It is incapable of any sort of development, or of that constant advance in thought and undying vitality which are characteristic of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not, indeed, carried about with every wind of doctrine like the Protestant Churches. It has, in the main, kept the old Faith, but only at the cost of ceasing to think. On all the vital questions which have been discussed, and in many cases settled in the West, it neither has, nor can have anything to say.” Such is the impression formed from first-hand knowledge by the Rev. C. J. MacGillivray during his sojourn amongst Eastern Christians as an Anglican clergyman. You cannot, therefore, speak of the Greek Church as one Church; and not all the groups comprising it acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem by any means.
LikeLike
They differ on many essential points, although they are much nearer to Catholicism than they are to Protestantism, insofar as they retain the bulk of original Christian doctrine, and a valid priesthood. They acknowledge the doctrine of the Trinity, but deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both Father and Son. They deny the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope; the right of the Church to baptize by pouring the water instead of by completely immersing the subject; the right to give Communion under one kind only; the Catholic doctrine of the particular and general judgments; also the Catholic doctrine on the nature of purgatory, although they admit the existence of purgatory. Whilst believing that Mary was quite sinless, and maintaining a great devotion to her as the Mother of God, they deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This, however, is a more recent denial. The Greek Churches believed in the Immaculate Conception until the advent of Protestantism. Under pressure of Protestant opinion they wavered without denying it. The denial came when the Pope defined the doctrine in 1854, but merely because they were opposed to the Pope and wished to manifest their opposition. They have nothing against the doctrine in itself. The Greeks also differ from Rome concerning the nature of original sin, and of justification. These are the chief differences, some of them rendering the Greek Churches heretical as well as schismatical.
LikeLike
Firstly, read the article you are commenting on. It is not an attack on the Roman Catholic church. I used that image in hopes that it would draw in leftwing people so that they could read my article and be exposed to a different perspective. I am a supporter of the residential school system. Secondly, I have heard all of the arguments you posted here before. I did not find them convincing then, and I do not find them convincing now. My views on Catholicism can be found in my other articles which I recommend you read.
LikeLike
Hey man! Been a while since I’ve commented. What are you’re thoughts on the atrocities the Iron Legion committed (or are said to have committed). I’ve never truly done the research enough on it, and figure you as an Orthodox man with a good sense of pragmatism would have something thought provoking. If you’ve written on it before I’d be happy to check it out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve only ever touched on it tacitly. My interest in the Legion was oriented more towards the writings and actions of Codreanu, and as far as I’m concerned the authentic Legionary movement died with him. Codreanu, for lack of a better term, played by the rules. He only engaged in violence as a response to the violent actions of communists and other groups, and I would argue that Codreanu’s use of violence was defensive. Codreanu supported the established government and did not seek power via extra legal methods, and did not engage in violence for the sake of violence. His antisemitism was a result of the anti-Christian and anti-Romanian actions the Jewish population in his country. Therefore, Codreanu did not hate Jews for being Jews, he hated the hostile actions and behaviors of the Jewish population and how they were influencing Romanian society as a whole. Jews exerted great power and influence in Romania because the Romanians allowed them to do so. Therefore, the “Jewish problem” is not solved by removing Jews. There will always be Jews, masons, and other subversive groups. To solve this problem, we must become virtuous and Christ-like, and thus we become immune to their negative influence of subversives. This was what the Legionary movement was meant to accomplish, to perfect its members and facilitate spiritual growth. This is what Codreanu wanted, and I do not think that the Legionary State under Ion Antonescu or the Legionary rebellion under Horia Sima perfectly abided by those principles. Now, that is not to say I completely denounce the Legion post Codreanu. I am not willing to say that the excesses and the violence of the later movement is enough to condemn them completely. After all, the Guard was constantly persecuted, had its founder butchered, and many people with institutional power still violently opposed the Guard. In such a tumultuous situation, I can understand and support the use of controlled violence. However, I do not support unrestrained and excessive violence. Violence should be used dispassionately and deliberately. The use of violence is not an excuse to give into the passions. To wield violence justly, as Christ did (regarding the money changers) we have to be Christ-like. As such, I do not condone the pogrom. To me, it seems like a bitter act of retribution, and although I can understand why some members of the Guard would feel justified in taking vengeance against the Jews, we as Orthodox Christians are supposed to be better than that. As it stands today, the Guard in popular discourse is now exclusively remembered for that pogrom, which I think is unjust.
LikeLike
Actually those mass graves at Catholic Schools in Canada have been proven false. Nothing was found. All those supposed graves were actually tree roots. I just saw a report by Sky News in Australia that debunked this.
LikeLiked by 1 person