The Third Rail – Episode 3 – Thinking Big (For You) And The Holocaust

This week the Third Rail crew discuss Based Dickman and the cuck-out that is civic nationalism, the neverending evolution of the Holocaust narrative to keep them shekels flowing, and the importance of Thinking Big as a people. Join Reactionary Tree, Lauritz von Guildhausen, Caerulus Rex and Spectre for more fun than goyim should be allowed to have.

Charles Lyons
the authorCharles Lyons
Charles Lyons is the Chief Administrative Officer of Arktos Media.


  • > Lauritz: stickman a traitor

    Lauritz get over yourself. There were a lot of just plain Trump supporters who gave, too. He was worth my small $.

  • Holocaust denial is 1990s-era white nationalism. It doesn’t lead anywhere. A year or two ago, white identitarians were accepting that whites can be brutal, and this brutality is part of white identity. That was the correct instinct. To turn towards denialism is to reject identity.

    • Society is shaped by narratives. The Holocaust narrative is the linchpin of modern liberalism. If the narrative is allowed to stand, all anti-white theory and policy is justified.

      • I wrote a longer comment but it went straight to pending. Maybe a shorter one will be better. The holocaust is historically important. It allows us to recognize the fragility of groups we’re sympathetic with, like the Afrikaaners in South Africa.

        • If it was only a cautionary tale, that would be true. But the fact is, it’s a blackmail device, based on a lie, used by people who want to see us eliminated.

          • The solution is: don’t let it function as blackmail. It should function as history, not as blackmail.

            What the Germans did was comparable to what the Greeks did to Troy: it was monstrous and tragic, and the Greeks were subsequently willing to face that part of their own souls, because the Greeks were a mature and noble people. When I listen to Holocaust denialists, I feel I am listing to people trying to convince whites that they’re just simple peace-loving Hobbits who would never, ever do something brutal to another group. It’s a false identity and irreverent towards the real past.

          • You’re doing the Jewish thing. Psychoanalyzing the messenger, to avoid dealing with the message. Elaborate ad hom.

            Fact is, it didn’t happen. A lot of people have debunked it in a lot of ways. So the question becomes, what social engineering purpose does it serve? If you’re not asking that question, you’re nowhere.

          • The quality of scholarship and evidence demonstrating that the Holocaust happened is about the same as the quality of scholarship and evidence showing us that a Gulag Archipelago existed in the USSR, and that a Cultural Revolution took place in China, and that a class-genocide took place in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. You have a combination of superabundant written records, archaeological/forensic remains, and thousands of survivors and/or witnesses. In all cases, for the history to be false, we have to assume a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people. You might as well tell me there was no moon landing.

            I don’t this thing where I selectively accept some bundles of overwhelming historical evidence are “true” because I want them to be true and others are “false” because I want to LARP as a hobbit. It’s not necessary, or desirable, for Identitarianism to mimic the whitewashing instincts of the postmodern left.

          • The pattern to fit it in with is not other “holocausts,” but other audacious social engineering schemes perpetrated by the chosen. The Holocaust being true, in light of debt banking, Marxism, Bolshevism, Boasian anthropology, desegregation, feminism, critical theory, etc., is completely illogical.

          • It seems totally logical to me. The history of the pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust, would seem to explain why jewish intellectual leaders would be drawn to everything you just listed. This is certainly how I read KM’s work.

          • Point of everything I just listed is that it is all based on insane Jewish sophistry, but through media and academic manipulation, it has all become standard belief/practice throughout the West. And it all, coincidentally, results in demoralizing and disempowering Western man. The Holocaust, if we assume it’s BS, fits this description to a T.

            KM, if he applied his premises to Holocaust myth-making, which he wouldn’t dare do, could not help but arrive at the same conclusion.

          • > The quality of scholarship and evidence demonstrating that the Holocaust happened similar to that for others

            I’m not a holocaust scholar so I can’t rebut this strongly, but I’ve read that the judge in the Lipstadt case commented that it was surprising that there was so little physical evidence for the holocaust. At least, the mass murder aspect I presume.

            That leaves testimony:


    • Revisionism is not denialism as you call it,you cannot deny something that didn’t happen(ie: a grossly exaggerated narrative for shock value).The whole point of why revisionism is necessary is to ascertain the validity of the special claim of Jewish suffering which led to a monopoly on sympathy against other losses in the war/post-war period that have been deliberately obscured or relegated in significance.
      Brutality is not one of the Noble Virtues of white identity but sincerity,honour & courage are.

      • i don’t see how it’s a monopoly. Clearly, liberals have proven more than capable of directing their sympathies in multiple directions. I think that East Prussian Germans (who suffered a terrible genocide in 1945-50) and Afrikaaners deserve sympathy too (in fact I think the two groups deserve their own states) — but I dont see why, to elicit that sympathy, it would be necessary to attack the well-established historical record regarding other genocides.

        Read the Iliad. Brutality is both a strength and a tragic aspect of white identity. No true white identitarian would seek to deny this.

        • Strangely enough I picked up a 2nd hand copy of The Iliad just last week so I will get back to you on that one when I’ve read it….having the courage to do what ever is necessary to defend your folk would likely be seen as brutality by your enemies though for sure.

          Now,if you add up of all the Hollywood propaganda & the astronomical reparations packages paid to Jews(the number of survivors debunks their own story btw) since 1945 & fail to see a monopoly then I am at a loss quite frankly & I am also struggling to think of any evidence of liberal sympathy for Germans or Afrikaaners either.The general liberal mind-set is that whites deserve what’s coming to them because historical & scientific facts have been skewed & misrepresented in Academia & the Media to favour the growth of out-group empathy.

          As for well-established historical record Napoleon’s words still hold true in my opinion “History is written by the Victors” & the case for white Ethno-States will be better presented to our people minus this over-inflated myth of German villainy that’s been pumped by Hollywood for decades….if they made as many movies about the Soviet Gulags or the post-war genocide of Germans you could say there was balance but they don’t do they?

          • Of course it’s going to be hard to persuade normal people to sympathize with Afrikaaners and Prussians if the first thing you say is “in order to sympathize with Group X and its plight, first you have to swallow the pill of holocaust denialism.” It’s totally counterproductive, and I think you’d see that it’s counterproductive if you hadnt been overly redpilled (poison pilled) on this particular issue.

            I looked into the holocaust denial literature a few years ago because I was curious as to how strong the case might be. I also went through periods where I was curious about 911 trutherism and Kennedy assassination theories.

            What I noticed about the three sets of authors was that the holocaust denialists were by far the most willing to recycle debunked pieces of faux-evidence and to pretend that the debunking had never taken place. Simply put, the holocaust denialists oozed disingenousness and snakeoil salesmanship, while the other two sets of authors (esp the JFK people) didnt.

            For example: it doesn’t seem to matter how many times it’s pointed out that the World Jewish Almanac’s 1948 figures on global jewish population were based on the 1938 census: the denialists still recycle this debunked fake fact. I suspect the experienced denialist authors know this, but don’t care because the faux-factoid is supposed to function as a “hook” — as if in a sales pitch. You generally don’t see this kind of disingenuousness with 911 truthers and you definitely don’t see it with JFK assassination theorists. The latter group, the JFK people, no longer point towards “back and to the left” as evidence of a second shooter, because of the revelation about Kennedy’s back brace. I’m actually *more* inclined to think the JFK people are actually onto something, precisely because of this kind of self-correcting honesty.

  • In a way, the Milo and Murray eruptions were a huge boon to us.

    Why? The internet.

    Prior to the internet, all the discourse happened in MSM or academia. And they were monopolized by institutions and big industry.

    So, if Murray or Milo had been shut down back then, it really would have been a silencing of voices in the only meaningful venue. Also, the media might not have given much attention to the censorship.

    But thanks to the internet, much of the cultural and political discourse now happen online.

    Colleges still have lots of power in commanding the elite or mainstream narrative, but there are now alternative narratives that are growing by the day.

    It’s like this ‘meme’:

    There really was a time when the ONLY way you could learn stuff or gain access to stuff was by attending college or living in a big enough city like NY with massive public library.

    But today, someone living in bumbleville, OK has more access to movies, news, and academic stuff than a Harvard professor did in pre-internet age.

    So, in pre-internet era, shutting down voices on campus really meant shutting down those voices.

    But there are so many venues for different opinions in so many platforms online. So, when college kids think they are shutting down ideas by shouting them down in their own colleges, they are completely deluded. They are living in a bubble.

    If anything, the shutdowns of Milo and Murray only made them into big news and made more people look into what they’re about.

    Indeed, suppose the event at Middlebury had gone quietly and nicely. Only the people at the event would have known about it. It would have been just one more of many many such events happening on campus. But because of the ruckus, many people got to hear about Murray and would have checked what his ideas are about.

    So, I welcome all these PC-tards to create more ruckus on campus and stir up more news and controversy so that people online will check them out.

    • that’s why infilitrate and agitate is essential if you live near a campus… I’ve discovered I can freely leave uncensored comments until the cows come home at .. so I do .. they’d blocked me on facebook ages ago, just like their student union, university main page, the town’s facebook page and for that matter the page of the premier of nova scotia who wants to welcome hoardes of chinese students to come study and then stay .. if they’ve got the big bucks..

  • Gravlax in today’s Sweden is raw salmon that has been preserved with salt and sugar. You usually eat it at Christmas. Grav though means dig or grave so maybe at one time it was put in a hole. What you describe sounds more like surstromming (sour herring). That is a fermented fish and way back when was literally put in a hole in the ground and dug up later after it had fermented. It smells and taste like hell. You eat it once at year in August with lots of vodka. I don’t know where Jews come into the picture but that is definitely Nordic food and I’m pretty sure they don’t have either salmon or herring in the bloody desert where these parasites came from .

  • ~15mins in, ‘based stick man’ hedging his bets by inter-marrying: I think the causality goes the other way – he got yellow fever before the survival of whites became a concern, and now his brain has to fall in line with what he’s done.

    • I had a roommate in college that brought up the Jewish skin lampshades when I told him about a German lit class I was taking.

  • Around the 53 minute mark:

    Yeah, think of the irony. Jews in the culture-making business (Hollywood, literature, academia, music, etc.) have promoted nihilism in the white population for decades. So why does it dismay them that we don’t care about their Holocaust propaganda now? If nothing in life matters, then Jews’ problems don’t matter.

  • This is fast becoming one of my favorite podcasts. They do good work. Last week’s show with Richard was really good too. And in regards to this weeks show, I think this Based Dickman asshole is the straw that broke the camels back. The Alt-Right is not going to support anymore Alt-Lite traitors. Fuck’em.

Leave a Reply