The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is obviously not just a museum, but has a mission of political propaganda in service to specifically Jewish interests. On Monday, 21 November 2016, the museum issued a public condemnation of statements reported to have been made by Richard Spencer in a speech at a conference of his National Policy Institute two days earlier, just a short distance from the USHMM. The museum declared itself “deeply alarmed” and called for action.

The text of the declaration makes clear that the author did not even bother to make a careful determination of what Spencer had said, but simply trusted accounts given by news-media. The USHMM really did not have to rely on press-reports, since the conference was streamed live on YouTube, and the content was accessible immediately afterward. Because the USHMM relied on news-media, its account of what Spencer said is not entirely accurate.

"According to press reports, Richard Spencer … made several direct and indirect references to Jews and other minorities, often alluding to Nazism. He spoke in German to quote Nazi propaganda and refer to the mainstream media."

Spencer did make some "allusions to Nazism." He declared "half-jokingly" that the election of Donald Trump was a "victory of the will," and that the Alt Right had "willed Donald Trump into office." He closed his speech with: "Hail Trump; hail our people; hail victory." These elements of Spencer's speech were over the top, but he gave notice that they were not meant entirely seriously.

Spencer did not “speak in German” whatsoever, and he certainly did not quote any "Nazi propaganda" in German. He used one German word, Lügenpresse – the lying press. This is not particularly a National-Socialist word, but (a Google Books search shows) was already in use in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and was even used by Marxists like Heinrich Laufenberg. In Germany today the word is used often by opponents of immigration, because news media try to conceal the crimes of immigrants. The word Lügenpresse recently came into the common parlance of Trump-supporters (J. Nesbit, Time, 25 October 2016), because of Trump's frequent and emphatic digressions about the dishonesty of the news media.

There was only one direct reference to Jews in Spencer's half-hour speech, about Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory. "Indirect" references to Jews would be a matter of interpretation and opinion, but Jews on the lookout for implicit anti-Semitism always seem to find some.

"He implied that the media was protecting Jewish interests and said, 'One wonders if these people are people at all?'”

Spencer identified "these people" as "leftists and cucks." If Spencer meant to imply that there is a Jewish bias in American news media, he was right, but in fact he did not make this clear. Neither did he point out the extent of Jewish control of and presence in mass media.

"He said that America belongs to white people."

The assumption that the United States of America were a White (preponderantly Anglo-Saxon) country was hardly questioned prior to the publication of An American Dilemma in 1944 (credited to Swedish Marxist Gunnar Myrdal but actually written, E. Michael Jones argues, by Jewish sociologist Louis Wirth). This book suggested that the United States should put its ethnic and racial identity behind it, and instead base its identity on political ideals of the Enlightenment and nothing else. The longterm viability of such a state has been doubted by many.

"His statement that white people face a choice of 'conquer or die' closely echoes Adolf Hitler’s view of Jews and that history is a racial struggle for survival."

The view of human history as racial conflict is not unique or original with Adolf Hitler. It was earlier espoused by an American named Lothrop Stoddard with his book The Rising Tide of Color (1921). This view of history does not have to be derived from Hitler because it is a fairly obvious corollary to Darwinism.

The conflict of interest between the White majority and the other populations that are on the verge of outnumbering it is widely recognized. Such an observation only becomes a cause for alarm when it is made by a White person who wants to do something about it.

Jewish economist Paul Krugman, explaining the “craziness” of American politics, said:

"A lot of the craziness comes from cultural/ethnic issues—rural White Americans who feel they are losing their country, and they are right. They are losing their country. In the end, the power they now have will go away, but it’s a very difficult and dangerous time until then." (Norwegian television)

A self-described “ghetto nerd” writing for Salon observed:

"Trump’s base of white working-class authoritarians is scared of what they view as a 'new' America, one in which they believe that the psychological and material wages of Whiteness will not be as great." (Chauncey Devega, Salon, 22 February 2016)

The Huffington Post last February ran a piece titled: “Donald Trump Is Winning Because White America Is Dying.” This article notes that poorly educated, middle-aged White males are dying in disproportionate numbers from suicide and substance-abuse. (M. Ferner, Huffington Post, 25 February 2016)

The observation of growing adversity faced by the White population of the United States is thus rather commonplace, and does not seem to generate much concern. But when Richard Spencer observes the same phenomenon and proposes to change it, this signals the danger of another Holocaust. The USHMM leaves no doubt that this is how they want his words to be regarded:

"The Germans attempted to kill every Jewish man, woman and child they could find. Nazi racism extended to other groups. By the end of World War II, the Germans and their collaborators had murdered six million Jews and millions of other innocent civilians, many of whom were targeted for racial reasons.

The Holocaust did not begin with killing; it began with words. The Museum calls on all American citizens, our religious and civic leaders, and the leadership of all branches of the government to confront racist thinking and divisive hateful speech."

Thus the beginning of another Holocaust is seen in mere words (not even correctly reported), and the exaggeration of past Jewish suffering yields a justification for censorship.

If the author of USHMM's declaration had read news reports more carefully, he might have seen that neither gas chambers nor mass shootings are what Spencer was proposing:

And if the USHMM's author had checked for himself the content of Spencer's speech, he would have found that almost nothing was said about Jews. How can it be possible to stir a mob to violence against Jews without saying the word Jew?

Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that Spencer is motivated in that direction anyway, since he hired a Jew, Paul Gottfried, to edit his Radix Journal last year.

Many readers of CODOH may not agree with Spencer's agenda, but the fact remains that what he proposes – a “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” perhaps not even involving Jews – is very different from the tale of horrors force-fed to us as the Holocaust.

The USHMM, nonetheless, has imputed that Richard Spencer's “words” represent the danger of another Holocaust, and they urge their readers to “confront” those who present this danger. “Confront” is a very vague term. What kind of confronting should a Jew contemplate when there is an impending Holocaust to be averted? Obviously, extreme measures should not be ruled out.

The day after the USHMM's incendiary declaration, Michael Hirsh, who is not some uneducated proletarian antifa but a Jew, and until recently an editor of Politico (and thus a member of the afore-mentioned Lügenpresse), posted Spencer's two home addresses on Twitter, urging violence:

“He lives part of the time next door to me in Arlington. Our grandfathers brought baseball bats to Bund meetings. Want to join me?”

As it turns out, Hirsh's employer was sufficiently embarrassed that Hirsh no longer works for Politico, but with such an inflammatory call to action issued by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (which is, incidentally, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation), it seems likely that Hirsh was not the only Jew who got the message, and that Richard Spencer will continue to be in danger.

Richard Spencer's speech in a sense has already led to another Holocaust, but not in the sense that the museum intended: rather, it is another Holocaust insofar as it is a miniature example of the same kind of Jewish hysteria based on uncritical repetition of false and exaggerated accusations.