Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is “not important”

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2017-08-08 23:24

A 2017 photo of Professor Kevin MacDonald.


By Carolyn Yeager

KEVIN MACDONALD RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN a videocast of “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin's limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

“Yeah, um, I guess I'm not, uh, I've never had any sympathy really, before – I, I haven't seen, I haven't seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have – frankly, I haven't dealt into it very much. My view is that it's not important for what I'm doing and I don't think it's really important – I, I think what's really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it's taught in school, how it's used to defend Israel, and it's used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things – ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly (… slurs some words] and all that is something that I don't think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just … just uh … third rail.”

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I've NEVER had any sympathy

  • NEVER seen anything that convinced me

  • Don't think it's really important

  • Haven't dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)

  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds … “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably” – it's not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It's too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he's dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Why is it so many do then? Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He's saying that what he's doing is important but what they're doing is not important.

  • What's really important is the CULTURE of the Holocaust

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn't happen, how can a “culture” of it exist?. Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn't want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I'm afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn't want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn't have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them. (See here) And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin's case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, ““I've made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he's doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he's afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance” – that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn't.

That's an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his  thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

“Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality – I just don't know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a – you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.”

  • Hitler was a disaster

  • Don't know much about it

  • Interfered with military policy

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn't know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

“But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930's in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It's just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the – the, uh, the result of the second world war is uh has essentially given us the war that we're in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can't be undone.”

  • Hitler was loved by the people

  • Unified the nation

  • Incredible accomplishments

  • The war was a disaster

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn't explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald's simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler's 'disastrous' war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don't know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

“It's impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don't think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I – That's my best guess.

  • Bad for Jews

  • Europe still a White, Christian-based civilization

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You'd have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you'd have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it's getting, you know, they don't and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go – you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can't seem to vote in a government that will actually do something. So until that happens .. um .. they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there. So until that happens, it's just going to fester and there's going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites … But, I'm amazed at the staying power of ... it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now … but then you see you've got the victory of Macron in France, so … and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn't seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel's going to win in Germany, so it doesn't look (chuckles wryly) that anything's really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook

  • No mention of removing Jews

  • No political will even for removing Muslims

  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn't mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor/American Renaissance) – when they get together they “don't talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about [white interests]. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there's no will to do anything about it. They're grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler's List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it – Hitler's a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it's not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique –it's about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor – almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don't use the word parasite … much. … I don't think you can use that word for American Jews.” [see here and here]

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don't like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with nazism. It's a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don't think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It's just bad PR.”

On foreknowledge of 9/11, Kevin said: “It doesn't resonate. I do believe that Mossad was keeping tabs on the terrorists.” He doesn't see any evidence of planning the whole thing, wiring the buildings ahead of time, or much more Jewish involvement. “I did publish one article on that that I probably regret, I could probably take it off ...”

Last year TOO published a 5-part review by Andrew Joyce of Jew David Cesarini's book on The Holocaust. It was very popular with many comments. I do not know what Joyce might have said that gave Kevin second thoughts, but Hadding Scott informed me last week that those five articles had been scrubbed from the site. And so they have. Scott said he had copied and saved them, so it's possible he may write something about it in the future. But this fact shocked me. It may have been the content of some of the comments that were objectionable, but if that were the case they could have simply been removed individually, or all comments removed. So I think it was just too close to “Holocaust denial” for Kevin.

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise ("on their knees" as it's been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don't know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It's always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn't. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don't. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don't like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn't want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior – no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don't seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Comments

The obvious question, since MacDonald seems to recognize that the Holocaust is a powerful propaganda-weapon for the Jews, is what MacDonald would have us do about it. What is the point of complaining about the use of the Holocaust in propping up the State of Israel and suppressing White resistance to non-White immigration, if there is nothing to be done about it?
 
The fact that he claims never to have looked into Revisionism is remarkable. He recognizes that the Holocaust is a big problem but he hasn't investigated whether the story is true or false? This seems an enormous oversight.
 
When other kinds of demoralizing accusations are directed at White people, the normal practice is to question their veracity. For example, the claim that prisons are full of Negroes only because of White racism is freely questioned and debunked. Jared Taylor does this kind of thing. For Kevin MacDonald, an alleged champion of White interests and expert on the Jews, there is no excuse for failing even to take an interest in whether such questioning about the Holocaust might also be fruitful.

It's cowardice.

Everybody has his limitations. Those limitations are sometimes consciously chosen. Kevin MacDonald has chosen to be a White Nationalist and not a National Socialist. He has also chosen not to be a conspirationalist. With regard to Jews, he has chosen to analyze and criticize their behavior but not to advocate for their expulsion, let alone their extermination. And of course he is no exaggerated Germanophile. Once you realize that, all his positions become clear. With his limitations, he still is of great value.

Doesn't Kevin himself speak often about the "problem" of White individuality - our lack of collective thinking and common action. But he is a very good example of it, isn't he.

The loyalty rule is: Always defend the White over the Jew. He doesn't do that. Shame on him.

With regard to Jews, he has chosen to analyze and criticize their behavior but not to advocate for their expulsion, let alone their extermination.

No Jews have been exterminated in modern times (if ever), so why even use the word. This is how lies and prejudice against Whites is spread - by innuendo such as this, unsupported with any facts.

Kevin MacDonald is under the illusion that there exists such a thing as the "good Jew" and he hopes he can make a deal with him : we support Israel as the ethnic state for the Jews, and the Jews support an ethnic state for us. That is not going to work. The Jews want it all : ethnocentrism for themseves, but multiculturalism for us. Recently he allowed a Jew to write an article on TOO. That decision was severely criticized by the commenters, including by me, then Kevin closed the comments on that article  and threatened to close comments on TOO all together if such criticism didn't stop. This might be the beginning of Jewish infiltration of TOO. If the Jews will have their way with TOO, it will become like AmRen, allowing criticism of Blacks and Hispanics, but not of Jews.

Non sequitur. You do not have to be a National-Socialist to tell the truth about National-Socialists. Revisionism is very big in the Muslim world now, and certainly none of those people are members of the NSDAP.

Agree with Franklin Ryckaert.
Please stop bashing Kevin MacDonald for choosing his own way for dealing with certain problems. "Holocaust denial" and even open Hitler admiration could lead to imprisonment or be reason for a travel ban in several European countries.

But I wrote in the ARTICLE (that we're supposed to be commenting on):

In Kevin's case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, ““I've made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he's doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

and

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don't know.”

If you just want to listen to Ryckaert pontificate, which is what he wants, you must realize that he picks certain sentences or phrases from the article or a comment that give him that opportunity and ignores other counteracting sentences that already repudiate his ideas.

There is nothing he has written in his comments that adds any new information or new viewpoints to what I put in the article. I anticipated everything he has said because it is so obvious.

In fact, I'm going to cut him off from commenting if he continues trying to dominate the discussion, because there is still one more from him pending. He's a bore.

Things, and including people, are not always what they seem. See this article:

"Why I think Kevin MacDonald and the Occidental Observer are Controlled Opposition":

http://mileswmathis.com/kevin.pdf

I held off on approving this comment because I don't like indulging people in their conspiricy theories and I was suspicious of the title of the pdf and didn't know Miles Mathis.

But after reading it, I found it contained, at the least, some interesting info on MacDonald's history which doesn't hurt to know, but also I related to Mathis' discussion of the art world. I have experienced this first hand and, when you do experience something first hand, it makes all the difference in your ability to know the truth, or not,  of what's said about it.

So take it for whatever it's worth to you. I do not endorse the idea that MacDonald is controlled opposition.

There is such a thing - at least in the (Jewish) press - as "guilt by association". If Kevin MacDonald would engage in holocaust revisionism or a more nuanced view of Hitler he would immediately be associated with NS and himself be called a "Nazi-sympathizer". Given his already difficult position, he wants to avoid that.

Sorry if that's insulting, but what you wrote is so "in your face" obvious.

If we're justified in fearing what the "Jewish press" says about us, we're completely defeated from the start. So it's not about what's true but about what the Jews will allow us to say. That's very much what I wrote in this article. You and MacDonald are on the same page with this and YOU are more responsible for the death of Europe than are the Jews. Because you won't fight back, fire with fire, but you crouch and quiver.

Yes, MacDonald supports white nationalism and militant anti-Semitism only in the abstract; when asked to support it in the concrete, he evades. He'd never get behind an actual white nation - National Socialist Germany - which opposed the machinations of world Jewry and even went to war against it; neither would he support the whites who struggled against Jewry - such as Adolf Hitler and Ernst Zündel - in the real world and who paid a terrible price for it.
 
Reminds me a lot of Franklin Ryckaert (Mr 'Muh General Plan Ost from Wiki'). During WWII, would the anti-Semitic, 'Jew savvy' Mr Ryckaert have been on the side of Hitler, Rost van Tonningen and Mussert? Or on the side of Churchill, De Gaulle, Roosevelt and Stalin? The question answers itself. Ryckaert hates Jewry, but hates Germany more. Anti-Germanism ('anti-Deutschenismus') trumps anti-Semitism.
 
Unlike Ryckaert, MacDonald doesn't feel a visceral hatred for all things German; he just doesn't want to get involved in actual politics, that's all, as he could potentially suffer from it.
 
Plenty of people on the Right and Left in America and elsewhere in the West support really horrible and murderous non-white regimes, such as Iran and Syria, or the oppressive and nominally-white Soviet Union (from the period of 1953 to 1991), because of those countries' putative opposition to 'Zionism'. But ask the same people what they think of an actual white nation - National Socialist Germany - which stood up to Jewry, and see what their reaction is.
 
The truth of the matter is that you can, in the US, sympathise with communism or Shia Islamism or Assadism or Palestinian nationalism, and you won't face serious consequences; but if you're a Zündel, you will. That's why MacDonald balks. The Soviets, Arabs and Muslims are seen by Jewry as rivals, competitors; National Socialist Germany, on the other hand, was seen as a total political enemy which must be destroyed - totally. Jewish-controlled America never put the effort into fighting communist Korea and Vietnam that they did into fighting - and beating - Germany. 
 
Even now the US is putting in a lacklustre effort into its war in Afghanistan: but what if Taliban were white? 'Nazis'? The US would wipe them from the face of the Earth.
 
MacDonald understands this, only all too well.
 
White nationalism is the coward's way out.

... is a nonsense question. Try the question, "Did the sun rise this morning?"
 
Well, even through cloud cover this morning obscured my sight (I HAD sight this morning, thank God) of the orb in question, I have it on good authority that it did. And the sky DID become light on schedule, more or less.
 
Or did the sun rise? Copernicus might quibble: the sun did nothing this morning vis-a-vis the earth. The earth, however, rotated pretty much as it has for quite a while now, so that people on earth observing might see the sun APPEAR to rise ...
 
It's a nonsense question, eliciting no more information than, say, calling someone a "Holocaust denier." In fact, it elicits NONinformation. MacDonald is adopting meaningless poses. Ignore him (on this), along with anyone else adopting such poses.

I think I would rather ignore you.

I disagree with this. If you begin by definiing the Holocaust, which many people (like Mark Weber and David Irving) never bother to do. you can say that the Holocaust did or did not happen. If you do not define it, then you cannot debunk it, because your interlocutor will keep changing the meaning of the word until: "If only one Jew died, it was a Holocaust!" 
 
I have been in an argument with a Jew who said that. What it means is that the Holocaust is a metaphysical event for Jews, and that the physical event supposed to correspond to it, and the determination of what that event really was, is of secondary importance for Jews. 
 
For non-Jews who do not share the Jews' superstitions, however, the alleged physical event is the key thing. It means that what is for Jews a religious certitude requiring no evidence is for us a claim that can be tested.
 
The sine qua non of the Holocaust, as Jews have presented it, is the gas-chamber story. No gassings of Jews means no Holocaust. Since there is no evidence for such gassings other than rumors, we can make that conclusion.

Thank you for giving Jett a real answer. I hope he sees it.

@ Carolyn Yeager 
"So it's not about what's true but about what the Jews will allow us to say."
 
Yes, sort of. The Jews control the media and thus public opinion and public opinion, no matter how wrong, is a social reality that cannot be ignored. If you want to engage in real politics, you will have to take that social reality into account. None of the nationalist parties of Europe - our only hope to stop mass immigration from the Third World - would have made any progress if they would have engaged in Holocaust revisionism or rehabilitation of NS. Politics is not about "truth", it is about power and that - like it or not - often means "working with the Lie".
 
@David
Kevin MacDonald is a typical theoretical intellectual, not a practical politician, but as such he is valuable.
 
Rejecting the crimes of Nazism is not the same as "hating Germans". The German people is more than a regime that lasted only for 12 years of their history. Hardly any modern German identifies with that short lived regime.
 
Dreaming about a revival of National Socialism "to solve all our problems" is perhaps even more illusory than dreaming about the revival of Wotanism as "our authentic religion". Both are good for small internet-sects, but not much more.

The Jews control the media and thus public opinion and public opinion, no matter how wrong, is a social reality that cannot be ignored.

Please don't waste everyone's time with stating the obvious. You continue to beat the same horse.

None of the nationalist parties of Europe - our only hope to stop mass immigration from the Third World - would have made any progress if they would have engaged in Holocaust revisionism or rehabilitation of NS.

The Nationalist parties are not making progress anyway, and I think it's because they keep becoming more like the Centrist parties ... in order to get wider support, you know. It doesn't work. They're also totally Jew and Israel friendly, so what do they stand for? If they have to please the Jewish press, what can they accomplish? They won't even be allowed to remove Muslims from Europe. It's all a fraud.

Is "dreaming about a revival of National-Socialism" more or less realistic than MacDonald's dreaming about the Jews saying mea culpa and changing their behavior?
 
If the White race survives, it will be accomplished through the implementation of policies strongly associated with National-Socialism.
 
It means that the rehabilitation of N-S is necessary so that we can do the things that we have to do.
 
The socialist part of it is indispensable, because plutocracy destroys nations. People calling themselves conservative are already warming to aspects of socialism, I notice. This is not going to be much of a problem except with a few people for whom the free market is an object of quasi-religious veneration.
 
Now, if somebody running for office doesn't want to use terms that would cause him to lose some votes, it's understandable, because that's just the way electoral politics are. But if, instead of running for office, your goal is to change the way people think, neutralizing the stigma attached to certain words might be an important part of that. Somebody outside of electoral politics has to stretch public tolerance so that politicians can say things that have to be said and eventually do things that have to be done.
Political change doesn't happen all at once. As a campaign of enlightenment makes an ever deeper impression, new possibilities open. 

None of the nationalist parties of Europe - our only hope to stop mass immigration from the Third World - would have made any progress if they would have engaged in Holocaust revisionism or rehabilitation of NS. 
____________
 
This is the common error of failing to distinguish electoral politics with metapolitical enlightenment. Of course the free speech of people running for office is limited by the importance of not alienating voters, but propaganda outside of electoral politics has a big effect on what is possible within electoral politics.
 
If you are running for office and at the same time trying to make big changes in public opinion so that they will vote for you, it means that the groundwork for your campaign had not been laid as it should be, before you started campaigning.
 
The worst thing that people trying to educate the public can do is to adopt the self-imposed speech-limitations of electoral politics. It commits them to being more or less ineffectual.

I will hereby kindly ask Carolyn to change the security system for posting. I swear that if ever again I am met with one of these ridiculous tests I will stop posting at such a site forever. It took me at least 10 minutes of my valuable time to get trough it. Why use this captcha system when there are so many less annoying solutions which are just as good? But many WNs it seems, give up on technical problems. I have had great problems posting at TOO (not with captcha though), and even after correspondence and attempts to fix the situation from both sides the problem persists. But too many website owners with too little tech knowledge give up on problems like that, letting unknown factors and chance interfere with concious policies.

I not too long ago had a different, simpler captcha installed and have not had any complaints since then. I did start to get some spam so maybe my site administrator changed it again. I will pass your complaint on to him.

If anyone else thinks my captcha is too difficult,  please let me know.

@Franklin Ryckaert
In my opinion and from my own experience contemporary National Socialists are notoriously difficult to cooperate with, no matter how obvious other people are on the right side. It looks mostly as if National Socialists wherever I look are extremely intolerant, and often stuck in useless fetishes. Many of them think that publicly doing the Hitlergruß is more important than cooperating with other nationalists who have different ideas or strategies.

While Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer both look white to me, I can't help wonder why they don't refer their audiences to such works as Adolf Hitler Greatest Story Never Told, when they are accused of being Nazis.
 
That documentary changes people instantly.
 
It changes the political culture to a "Hitler is good" axiom.
 
The Holohoax falls as a matter of self-defense.
Self-defense is its own defense.
 
Whether Jews were expelled from Germany or deep-sixed doesn't matter. The means of self-defense becomes a detail of history.
 
Most likely, white nationalist leaders are on the hook to Jew contributors and bite their tongue. With others advocating white rape gangs (the Anglinstanis), whites don't have any authentic leadership.
 
Part of that is whites themselves. They get the leaders they contribute to.
 
I'm pretty sure this thing called "white" is not an effective concept. If all one has to do is look white, you can't stop Jews taking over white leadership. White nationalism is doomed.
 
You have to go back to the Volk concept and authentic blood-European lineage.  
 
There's a strong sense of frustration and doom among white nationalists.
 
They are boxed-in by the notion that culture is everything, yet you can't change culture without being discredited, something they fear most. They don't understand and truly believe in human dynamics.
 
You can't change the culture, if you don't risk challenging today's spineless peanut gallery. You have to be true to the youth of tomorrow. You can't discredit yourself in their eyes, if you tell them the truth.

The comment about having to watch the Jew scripted "Schindler's List" is a prime example of why the holocaust narrative has to be scrutinized and exposed for the mass deception that it is.  
 
I spent 23 years as a teacher in the public school system, and I can tell you for sure that our children are bombarded with a steady stream of holocaust propaganda.   Our youth are indoctrinated with every holocaust film that comes out of the bowels of the Jewish dominated film industry.  They have had a false historic narrative crammed down their throats since in the early 80s. 
 
Elie Wiesel reins supreme in the school system, and woe to the educator who dares to question the nonsense in his fantasy book, "Night."  The fairy tale is usually read during students' sophomore year in English class.  The fact that it is considered on fifth grade reading level does not seem to matter. 
 
My many attempts  to get high school students to critically think and examine what they were being told was met with derision and mockery.  They also really came unglued when I would tell them to look up particular facts and evidence which pointed out the massive lies surrounding the official, kosher verision of Sept. 11, 2001. 
 
The female students were especially vulnerable to the neurotic emotionalism of the films and books.  Once they went home and told their evangelical mommies and daddies that I dared to question it all, I would find myself sweating it out in an administrator's office fearing I was about to face contract non-renewal. 
 
It was perfectly fine for the English teacher to delve into a period of history which they knew nothing about and had never seriously studied, but it was off limits for a foreign language teacher or anyone else who dared to question and apply critical thinking. 
 
The term Holocaust as we know it was not even around as late as the 60s and most of the 70s.  The Jews cashed in on it after a 1978 televison four part miniseries titled "Holocaust."  The saga has continued unabated with no end in sight
 
It is as tragic as it is pathetic that most Americans' historical worldview comes straight out of the Jewish owned entertainment industry. 
 
Consider the new film titled "Dunkirk." Try telling anyone you know who went to see it that there was no heroic escape by the British under fanatical "Nazi" bombardment, but that they were allowed an orderly escape back to jolly ole England  by a halt order from Adolf Hitler.  
 
Is it any wonder that Chabad Lubavitchers rule supreme in Lakewood New Jersey?
 
Until our men can garner some of the same courage that Carolyn demonstrates, prepare for more European death spirals and Lakewood communities because it all will be coming to a theater near you in due time. 
 
Check out the recent graphic photos of the negroid invaders from Morroco who just invaded Spain.  The Jew owned Daily Mail is taking great delight showing us their handiwork published Aug 7 which is currently up on rense.com 
 
It is important because somewhere near you there is an apostate protestant or Catholic ministry that thinks that there is a mandate in the spirit of biblical kindness to bring this trash here in order to enrich your sons and daughters. 
 

I read Miles Mathis' Occidental Observer = controlled opposition article. A bunch of crap in my opinion, some of it which is true (facts like publishers being Jewish etc.) while the reasoning is absurd.  Sadly the internet is full of this kind of bull and pointing fingers at others accusing them of being "controlled opposition" or being on the Jewish payroll. I have personally met professor Kevin MacDonald and witnessed some of the physical hardships he has had to deal with, monkey class traveling long distance, cheap and or primitive housing, unreliable hosts, and if at all receiving any, only tiny fees for giving a speech at some small gathering, in Denmark for example. But perhaps Mr. Miles and other similar accusers can document that Kevin MacDonald lives a life of luxury in some million dollar mansion in Florida or socializes on the Bahamas in his spare time? I am so lucky to have met Professor Kevin MacDonald in person, and in my opinion he is a man of great integrity, a humble down to earth individual who goes trough endless hardships because of his convictions, and the deep seated wish to do something for his fellow whites and the world as a whole as well.
Shame on those who acuse him or even suggest that he might be "controlled opposition".

Kurt - I can relate to your experience as a teacher, which I did not survive during the 1980s.
[...]
A word about Kevin MacDonald's stance: His theoretical focus on things Jewish in his trilogy is illuminating and is of pioneering relevance but not in trench warfare. It reminds me of how Arthur Butz was treated after he wrote his definitive The Hoax of the 20th century, where the two types of narratives are so clearly teased out: one claims the camps were normal, while the other nrrative claims homicidal gassings occurred. He suffered personal and professional retribution because of that but he did not lose his job, while others who publicly became combative  were terminated - see Finkelstein's fate, who, by the way, still believes in the homicidal gassing rubbish.
 
The MacDonald matter raises the question for whom is this Holocaust issue of importance, and judging by what Revisionists have had to endure, which has again been highlighted by Ernst Zundel's passing, it is clearly primarily a German-Jewish issue. Anyone with an ounce of Germanism will feel hurt by the defamatory imputations that are levelled against them through this horrendous allegation that Germans systematically exterminated six million Jews - God's chosen people. How audacious to push such an alleagtion on to the naive and gullible Germanic people!

Danke Carolyn!
 
Ich spreche keine Fremdsprache, kann mir Texte nur im Netz übersetzen. Die Wahrheit wird über die Lüge siegen!
 
 Henry Hafenmayer
_____________________________
My translation (cy) - Thanks Carolyn!
I speak no foreign language, can translate texts only on the net.The truth will win over the lie!
Henry Harbormayer   

I would like to thank Carolyn for posting my long rant yesterday.  Will try not to do it again, but I just had to unload it where the host and readers would understand.  
 
Those who have no experience in the public school system have no idea of the Jewish mind control that is being forced on our children.  The teachers themselves are clueless or are onboard with the agenda. 
 
Concerning Mile Mathis, I have read some of his material in the past and some of it is interesting.  Just don't be surprised though if he considers Carolyn controlled opposition or even a man in drag.  No joke.  Read some of his material and you will see what I mean. 

Miles Mathis is not a reliable source of information.  He thinks Matt Hale is not in a federal prison at all, and that the story that he is was just an "official story"  "manufactured"  by his handlers to make money and to create a martyr-image for White supremacism.  When I confronted him in an email with evidence that Matt Hale actually is in federal prison, he wrote me I was part of the controlled opposition and that I was an enemy of the truth.  He is not interested in facts or the truth.  He is interested in concocting alternative realities.  He also believes famous author Jack London was a fraud who was, "in reality," a rich socialist who portrayed himself as a longshoreman just for the image and that never wrote any of his own novels; he bought them or they were ghost-written for him.  Miles Mathis is a true conspiracy theorist and only that.  Matt Hale's own mother told me once, after I sent her the article in which Mathis makes his false claims about Matt Hale, she thinks Miles Mathis has a crazy, wild imagination.
http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf (referencing Matt Hale)
http://mileswmathis.com/london.pdf (referencing Jack London)

"Last year TOO published a 5-part review by Andrew Joyce of Jew David Cesarini's book on The Holocaust. It was very popular with many comments. I do not know what Joyce might have said that gave Kevin second thoughts, but Hadding Scott informed me last week that those five articles had been scrubbed from the site."
 
I thought Andrew Joyce's Cesarini article was excellent.  When I went to read it a second time a few months later I noticed it was gone and wrote to TOO asking about it.  I was told it was moved to TOQ (The Occidental Quarterly), the other website Professor MacDonald runs that you have to subscribe to for a small fee to receive.  I'm not a subscriber. 

for this information. Why couldn't they leave it at both sites?

I'm not a subscriber either.

Add new comment