The Heretics' Hour: Kevin MacDonald's problem with Holocaust revisionism

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2015-11-16 20:51

November 16, 2015

Carolyn puts Prof. Kevin MacDonald's statements about “Holocaust” revisionism made on Nordfront Radio this month under the spotlight, and contrasts his arguments with those of “convicted holocaust denier” and German heroine Ursula Haverbeck. Carolyn calls for more open discussion of why so many White nationalists are afraid not to believe in the “Holocaust” and why that is not an honest position. 1h23m

  • Need donations for Himmler speech translation - $2 minimum to receive a copy;
  • The terror in France will bring down Merkel's government;
  • Dissection of 5 min. clip of KMac on the holocaust on Nordfront radio;
  • Ursula Haverbeck: How German judges do the work of the Jewish accusers and the state of Israel;
  • Fritjof Meyer 2002 article on number of Auschwitz victims;
  • Why being neutral about the “holocaust” is not an option.


Here is a thought that I just had: If Jewish power lies in their control of the media, academia, and the political processes, as Kevin MacDonald says ... what about their control of HISTORY?

"The Holocaust" has to be a result of the Jews' ability to control the historical narrative. And when you control that, you've pretty much got it wrapped up!

When we convince enough people that the "The Holocaust" is a fraud, it will be a tremendous blow to their entire historical facade. It's true they use the other areas they control to prevent that, but TRUTH WILL OUT eventually, and we need to give it all the help we can.

The sharp exchange today between European Parliament president Martin Schulz and the new government of Poland is a good example of how history is distorted by the false "Holocaust" legend.

The Poles use the Jewish WW2 "history" to bludgeon Germany whenever they want something or want to get out of doing something. They will always bring up their invented victimhood in WW2 without ever mentioning their large role in antagonizing Germany and persecuting ethnic Germans living on German lands that had been handed over to the newly created Poland after WW1.

In this case, Poland's new interior minister accused Schulz on Tuesday of "German arrogance" and recalled Nazi atrocities in Warsaw in his reaction to Schulz's criticism of Warsaw's reluctance to accept migrants under EU quotas. Just because Schultz is German, although he represents the European Parliament and not the government in Berlin, the Polish minister thought it okay to attack Schultz on the basis of Germany's past.

I am not a fan of Schultz nor of the EU quotas, but bringing up WW2 on the man is really beyond the pale. This goes on all the time, and not just with Poland. For its part, Germany is unwilling to stand up for itself under this type of attack, again because of the false "Holocaust" for which it was forced to accept the blame. It really distorts the entire dialog about today's issues.

Dr. William Pierce did not only publicize Jewish control of mass-media (which I think he started doing actually in the late 60s). He also disputed the Holocaust.
I think that it is important to talk about Jewish control of mass-media, but I can't see how that is supposed to make much of an impression unless the ways in which Jews are abusing that control are also discussed. Otherwise Jewish control of mass-media becomes a big "So what?" It is absolutely necessary therefore to debunk Jewish lies, and for somebody who knows something about it, the Holocaust is clearly one.
I think that Dr MacDonald's problem here is precisely, as he says, that he is not competent to discuss it and also not comfortable with it. But it really is not so complicated, and for somebody who lives in the United States and is not trying to function in academia anymore, there really is no reason to be so uncomfortable, because there are quite solid facts supporting this position -- if one cares to learn them. One should acquire knowledge and then stand on that knowledge.
I can't recall that anybody ever called Dr. Pierce a kook, or portrayed him as a kook, as Dr. MacDonald says would happen. Dr. Pierce was careful about what he said and just didn't come across as a kook.
It does bother me that Dr. MacDonald seems to join Greg Johnson in saying that nobody should dispute this matter. That seems to me totally wrong.
An aggravating factor in Dr. MacDonald's (and Johnson's) attitude might be, as you imply, that he's been talking to the wrong people about it. Mark Weber would make anyone think that disputing the Holocaust is an endless morass, because Weber doesn't even bother to define the issue. 
If you nail down the meaning of the word Holocaust to some specific claim -- an attempt to kill all the Jews of Europe -- then you can demonstrate like Professor Faurisson that it is an accusation without evidence. If you neglect to do that, but instead allow "Holocaust" to have a flexible and shifting meaning, then you will be stuck with Mark Weber saying, "We don't deny the Holocaust," and looking like a mere nitpicker disputing details and pleading for mercy. To argue against the Holocaust with force you have to define it first.
I agreed with most of what you said, but I think you went off the rails at the end when you injected 9-11 Truth. On that point I agree exactly with Dr. MacDonald. It doesn't help to mix this strong issue, the Holocaust, with a much weaker issue.

I haven't looked into this latest controversy... But I can say that...
Kevin MacDonaald can write intelligent books. MacDonald isn't ashamed of his beliefs. He doesn't hide them or back pedal. At the same time, MacDonald holds a job in the public sphere. He Is one of the few people I can respect in the movement.

Nobody is saying that Kevin MacDonald is an evildoer harming the race. He does a lot of great work. He's just wrong on this particular point.

Well critic, as I said in the program, I respect MacDonald and his work too, and I am on record with that. But I was shocked at his careless statements about the "Holocaust" because it's a crucial issue for Europe and for the future of White people in their own lands. He needs to be called to account for that. Your knee-jerk defense without considering the issues does not move "the movement" forward.

KMac no longer holds a job in the public sphere -- he's retired.

On Radio Nordfront's site where the whole show is posted, there is a comment in English from someone called László who says this:

I understand why the holohoax is important in Sweden, but at one point you all can just drop it and ignore it . Explain to folk that since we didn’t do it, we were born after 1945, we are not guilty, we are not responsible, we will not pay for it , happened or not .
Concentrate on the compensation money we / Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, France, Italy / pay for something our grandfather may have done !

 László got 15 thumbs up, but I think that this is a really terrible comment for several reasons. 
In the first place, the mindset with which László approaches the problem is individualist -- which is not really compatible with nationalism.
Through individualism he can justify totally disowning the deeds of recent ancestors. But then, once one has exploited individualism that way, disowning one's ancestors instead of defending them, one is committed to remaining individualist. This kind of alienation from ancestors prohibits living in a racial worldview.
Another terrible aspect is that László shows that he does not care about truth, although perhaps he cares about money.
Really a very bad opinion from László. I cannot imagine a so-called nationalist movement consisting of people who think this way to have very much success.

What a fine analysis of László's comment at Radio Nordfront. With 15 others who agreed with him, it shows how confused so many are about the "Holocaust." Plus Poland has never paid any compensation money to anyone - nor probably Hungary (just maybe one lump sum in the beginning). I'm not sure about Italy.

László's position is fundamentally unethical.
People are defaming your ancestors? Don't worry about it.
People are spreading lies? Don't worry about it.
I am at the opposite extreme from this. I don't even tolerate people lying about my enemies.

ADL Jew Abe Foxman, "We refuse to debate with Holocaust Deniers."
Why not?... Answer...They know they will lose the debate !
The one thing that they fear most is their lies and deception revealed for all the world to see. I can't think of anything they are more afarid of.
The Holocaust is their big weakness, their Achilles Heel.
You must attack the enemy's weakest point.
Hammer, hammer, hammer! Attack Attack. When the heel crumples, the whole body collapses.
Once upon a time I used to believe in the Holocaust. I decided to Google "Holocaust Deniers" to find out what they actually had to say. It only took half an hour to realise the whole thing was Bunk! Not only that,.... I found out they were also bilking the German People out of Billions of Dollars/Euros.
Under English criminal law that is called "Obtaining Money by False Pretenses."
Well done Carolyn. I recommend your site a lot. You are on the offensive and so am I in my small way.
Where is the autopsy? What about the 6 million figure? Where is the order from Hitler? A murder weapon that could not possibly work?  Problems with the laws of Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry! Forget about lying witnesses. Let's put the onus of proof on the Jews! It is a lot easier than debunking each lie.
The Mark Webers and Kevin McDonalds are high profile wastes of time. They lack the courage necessary...unlike Ursula, Zundel, Mahler, Faurisson, Stoltz, Bishop Williamson, Rudolph and many others... It is not necessary to go through a morass of lies one by one. It is necessary to go on the offensive and take over the moral high ground from the Jews who occupy it fraudulently.
The annoying thing about McDonald or Weber is that they shy away from what is most important by far. The Holocaust and non existant gassing. They give reasons ("Jewish Power"??!! "Can't see the profit in it")  for not doing so but they deny their fear of the Jews which is the real reason. In Weber's case he looks like a Jew to me, and maybe he is one.
The Jews declared War on Germany in 1934. I don't see anywhere where they declared Peace, Their declaration of War is on all White Aryan Nations, not Germany alone. I will no longer put up with, "They suffered terribly during the War and one should be sympathetic to their plight." No they did not suffer terribly at all. You declare war on a country, so what do you expect? "We love you to declare war on us. Do please come around and have a nice cup of tea with us. Why not sabotage a railway or two. We would love you for that!" No! They get put in camps; it is only natural.
Jews always end up over playing their hand. Mass immigration means many more people now are ready to listen than 2 or 3 years ago. It is an easily provable fact that Jews are behind it, even admitted by Barbra Lerner Specter. Throw in the Holcaust at every opportunity.

The Mark Webers and Kevin McDonalds are high profile wastes of time.

No, no, no. Don't say that. We don't have anybody else doing what MacDonald does in evolutionary psychology, and it's enormously helpful.
Weber is not all bad either. His historical talks are interesting and useful up to a point. He's just very weak in an argument, and not a good example for somebody trying to determine whether and how to talk about the Holocaust.

I appreciate what you wrote, Joshua.

I like your: “Hammer hammer hammer! Attack Attack.” Yes, I also think we are not aggressive enough. It's as though our folks think we have forever, but we are seeing now, if we didn't before - what with the crazy migration into Europe - that we don't.

"Their declaration of War is on all White Aryan Nations, not Germany alone."
Well said Joshua! Dov Lior, a "settler" rabbi on the West Bank in Israel, recently stated regarding the Paris attacks, that they were deserved due to what Europeans "did to our people 70 years ago".
Besides being yet another example of Jewish arrogance and exceptionalism, it causes the uninformed to scratch their heads: "hang on a minute! Wasn't France one of the "good guys?"
The Jews want to destroy all White Europeans and people of European descent. Natives of the WWII Allied nations are naive if they imagine that the Jews are grateful to them for defeating Hitler.

OK Hadding, in the case of Kevin McDonald: Agreed. It would be better if instead of giving spurious reasons, he just admitted his fear of mentioning the subject, being in the position he is in.
In the case of Mark Weber, he has taken over the IHR, using it as his private piggy bank, and maintains there were gassings. It is unforgivable.

I become more and more convinced that Mark Weber is the real source of trouble here.
In January 2009 Mark Weber announced that there was no point in Holocaust Revisionism and that he was therefore going to redirect the Institute for Historical Review, of which he was now the director, away from its mission, and toward what Weber calls "the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power."
Excerpts from Mark Weber, "How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?" (2009):

Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history. [...] But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions, there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that -- as revisionists acknowledge -- Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment. This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary:
Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.” [etc.]
No informed person disputes that Europe's Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.
The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power. [...] In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one. In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role. [...] Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe's Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help. 

There are a couple of obvious criticisms to be made of the factual content of Weber's screed. For documentation of how badly Jews were treated during World War II, which is a major premise in Weber's argument for raising the white flag, Weber relies entirely on a "Goebbels Diary" that Weber testified convincingly in 1988 was spurious:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821). Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).
(Page-numbes from Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die?)

Why is Weber using a source that he has publicly identified as spurious?
Weber asserts: "No informed person disputes that Europe's Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War." But that is not the point. The point is that there was nothing unique or uniquely terrible about what the Jews suffered. This is what revisionism demonstrates.
Weber talks about "heartless quibbling." If anyone is a mere quibbler, it is Weber, for reasons that I have already stated. He is a mere quibbler because in his presentations he does not bother to define the issue before addressing it. He does not make delineations that allow one to limit the discussion to what is relevant. Forensically, Mark Weber is a slob, as is evident also in his continuing use of the Goebbels Diary 11 years after having exposed it as a fraud. 
Nobody ever called Robert Faurisson a quibbler. Professor Faurisson had this to say about Weber's announcement:

Weber knows that there’s sometimes not too much danger in speaking out against the “Jewish-Zionist power.” Even some Jews and Zionists at times attack that power as well. On the other hand, he is also fully aware that it’s always highly dangerous to commit the least transgression against the Jews’ and Zionists’ sacred cow, their supreme taboo, i.e. their secular religion of “the Holocaust,” and this is a risk he no longer wants to run.

So there is Mark Weber telling the whole world in 2009 that it is not useful to challenge the Holocaust. In the view of some established experts in the field, some with better credentials than Weber (not limited to Faurisson), Weber has taken this position because he is a coward.
Dr. MacDonald's expressed view seems to be simply a summary of what Weber has said. If there is someplace where Dr. MacDonald has given a coherent rationale for his conclusion on this subject, please show me. I have not seen it. It seems very much that Weber, the supposed expert, is simply being trusted and followed on this.

Weber relied on the Goebbels Diary 21 years after convincingly testifying that it was a fraud.

Dr. MacDonald's expressed view seems to be simply a summary of what Weber has said.

Yes, and that puts him in the same boat with "Dr." Greg Johnson.

Mark Weber is not just sitting quietly in the chairman's seat at IHR collecting a salary, but he is using that "pulpit" to give people as influential as Kevin MacDonald reasons to avoid the "Holocaust." 

This is a serious matter, and a matter of Jewish power. MacDonald is serving Jewish power when it comes to "Holocaust", while he is fighting Jewish power in other, less dangerous areas.

Will anyone else take this seriously? Mark Weber puts on a facade of smooth "rationality" in his approach to Jewish power which appeals to those who don't want to be labelled. The fact is, though, that he makes no impression whatsoever on that power,; he is a completely neutralized factor. So ... does he do it for money, or for love? Or because he is a tool, for whatever reason. We don't need to know his reasons, we just need to put a stop to his harmful influence on pro-White people. Even you, Hadding, wrote here that "Weber is not all bad ... his historical talks are interesting and useful up to a point."

I don't think mixed messages can be tolerated at all. It's the sign of a problem. I do believe that infiltration is the cause of our weakness, and inability to deal with it is weakness.

I don't think that Mark Weber is deliberately doing harm. He's just a weak character. This is also Faurisson's conclusion based on his long experience with him:

I found in him a researcher endowed with good intellectual qualities and also a man who, whilst openly showing vigorous far-right convictions, seemed without character. It even seemed that, if he so admired strength or energy, it was because he himself was weak, timorous, hesitant.
In 1989 he agreed to accompany Fred Leuchter and me in our examinations of Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim. He was strongly impressed by the nature of our investigation work, largely similar in method to that of police inspectors, both technical (on site) and scientific (in the laboratory). But truth compels me to say that he also, on more than one occasion, exhibited such fright that, in Germany, I thought to myself: “Here we’ve got a real softy of a revisionist, someone who may well abandon us should serious difficulties arise.”
Sometimes I’ve seen him go pale at the sight of our boldness and, in particular, when he happened to hear the noisy work of F. Leuchter on site. Leuchter couldn’t avoid making something of a racket banging out tiny fragments from the walls of the so-called homicidal “gas chambers” with his chisel. As the pieces fell to his feet he took the time, keeping his protective mask on, to gather them up slowly and scrupulously. Had a guard come by at that instant, we could well have found ourselves under arrest. The risk had to be run but it set Weber’s teeth chattering. I was embarrassed for him.
The scene is a hotel in Munich on March 23, 1991, where Ernst Zündel has made an appointment with fellow revisionists for the “Leuchter-Kongreß.” [...] At 7 AM, we learn that Ernst Zündel has been arrested by the police. Weber is there. He’s trembling like a leaf. He tells me there can no longer be any question of holding the scheduled conference. I object, saying the arrest of our mutual friend makes it an obligation for us to stay the course. He trembles even more and, overcome with fear, stammers: “But, but, but, Robert, we are revisionists; we are not Zundelists!”  He entreats me to drop the whole thing, saying we’ll all be arrested. The tears well up in his eyes. [Robert Faurisson, "Mark Weber Must Resign from the Institute for Historical Review", 3 April 2009]

It would not be so bad if Weber as a coward kept his inhibitions to himself. But a coward who proselytizes is a serious matter.

But if he's only a coward, why is he proselitizing others? He was proselitizing Mike Conner at VOR Radio too. Mike said they talked for hours on the phone and Mike was learning a lot from him.

And why does he hold onto his control of the IHR so tightly, for a rather small salary I might add and amid so many calls for him to resign, if he doesn't want to accomplish anything there? And why did he suddenly come to despise his former revisionist friends like Faurisson and Bradley Smith, and other notable revisionists like Rudolf and Zündel? He refuses to comment on any of that.

I don't know. I suppose that he feels the need to try to justify himself by getting others to show the same weakness. The fact that he is a weak character is clear.
Friction between Weber and some other revisionists had been building up for years. When I visited Faurisson in 2000, he spent a good bit of the time complaining about Weber's editorial practices, especially his tendency to try to soften everything, sometimes doing violence to the factual content.
Faurisson said that Weber was a vegetarian, and you know, vegetarians are like that (flips wrist).

Here is a thought that I just had: If Jewish power lies in their control of the media, academia, and the political processes, as Kevin MacDonald says ... what about their control of HISTORY?
Well stated.  How can anyone make a distinction between the two?!  I'm seeing more and more of what I will call the 'James Fetzer syndrome'. 
Fetzer has recently spoke out against the holocaust - admitting it is a fraud/fabrication.  However....he continues the Jewish lie of "Hitler as Evil".  Does this make any sense?  So Fetzer rejects the Jewish lie of the holocaust; but he retains and propogates the lie that Hitler was evil.  I see this more and more.  Other men are doing the same. 
Does this make any sense?  It is an insane world we live in.  Let us not believe in the Jew lie of the holocaust; but let us then believe anything the Jew may say about other subjects. 
How is the telling of History any different? 
Regarding Immigration --- think about this the next time you debate with a social justice warrior.........why is not the International community (jews and jew thinkers) suggesting China's Ghost Cities as an alternative for housing these people allegedly fleeing from war torn countries?  CBS 60 minutes has done a few investigations into these Ghost Cities.  It's not like the West doesn't know about them. 
Why not ship all of these people to China and set them up in these vacant ghost cities?  We give them money.....why not pay their way and provide them food.  We are paying anyway.  Why not pay and have them somewhere else.
But you logical as this may sound, the Jews and their Jew thinkers would never ever consider it because this is about White Genocide.  Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't hear SJW's demanding China house these people.  And we never will.
Ps....I don't buy Fetzer's recent conversion to holocaust denial.  He brags like he has done something no one else has done.  He has just regurgitated all those who came before him.  Big fat coward. 

So Fetzer rejects the Jewish lie of the holocaust; but he retains and propogates the lie that Hitler was evil.

This is the reason for many people not to want to get rid of the "Holocaust" ... because it will go a long way in rehabilitating Hitler. The first enemy of the Jews is Adolf Hitler and Nationalism. Hitler's successful and highly-praised National Socialist state weakened Jewish power tremendously. This is not something that Kevin MacDonald wants to deal with either. He doesn't like AH or N-S.

I received this from Fredrick Toben in an email yesterday ... something he also sent to a number of others:

Just the other day this Holocaust matter was raised by Carolyn Yeager in her program -   - wherein she mentions how Kevin MacDonald refuses to deal with matters Holocaust but instead focuses on “Jewish power” generally. She points out how it is the Revisionists who have forced the Holocaust believers to change the narrative of their tall tale again and again as a direct result of Revisionist research from Leuchter, Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, among others. To that I attach a 2001 letter from Willis Carto that supports Carolyn’s point about the importance in dismantling the various contradictory Holocaust narratives through basic scientific research.  I tend to agree with the wisdom emerging therefrom: basic Holocaust research has been done and Revisionists have won the argument on paper. Think of Zündel’s 1985  trial where for the last time such physical matters were discussed, then the 1988 trial where on 20 April Zündel presented the Fuehrer a Birthday present in the form of The Leuchter Report!  I can already sense individuals just reading this wince in whatever accompanying emotional intensity – my response to this is: Get over it! But for heaven’s sake don’t adopt the mentally tortuous position of “limited gassings”. That’s what PRIME UGLIES do – and always remember there are individuals who would like to ensure that the revelation is propagated by Jewish individuals who, unsurprisingly, are never legally persecuted. Imagine what David Cole did – relegated Revisionist pioneers such as Faurisson, Leuchter and Zündel to irrelevance. What mindset would wish to do that to these three courageous pioneers? And there are individuals who praised Cole’s autobiography when in fact it reveals a disgusting-pornographic  mindset as concerns his attitude to women.

As commentators such as the below know, touch the Holocaust and that is social death, if not imprisonment, so the skirting around the rim continues. The pathetic half-way mark, of legally playing it safe, is of course the preferred option that claims “limited gassings” occurred. In April 1999 before the indicting judge at Mannheim, who was writing up the proceedings before him – no objective court reporters there! – asked me whether I would like to add anything to what he had written. I said that were the elusive homicidal gas chambers-murder weapon ever to be found, then I would be the first to publish this information. Upon that prosecutor Klein jumped out of his seat and dashed towards the judge and cried out: ‘Das ist nicht noetig – that is not necessary!’ I then knew I had struck gold in my case – and because literally I was going to be sent down I insisted the judge write it down, which he did. Likewise in 1997, during my visiting Rabbi Abraham Cooper, our cordial discussion broke off suddenly when I responded to his question: ‘Do you question the gassings?’ with ‘Of course – we must look at the murder weapon’, etc.

In 1997 Dr Wilhelm Stäglich advised me that were a hundred German judges to refuse to enact Paragraph 130, then the law would simply become ineffective. But the fine tuning of the German re-education system has succeeded, something Dr Rigolf Hennig so clearly stated a decade again – induced madness, in: Zur geistigen Befindlichkeit der Deutschen  -

But just like in Australia and elsewhere, there are always judges who will apply the current law, then as  Manuel Sotil perceptively states below, by using sophistry at its best, they will go with the flow, and their judgment will inevitably reveal their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

It is this fact that has enabled me to formulate the maxim concerning our universal battle-of-the-wills: ‘Don’t only blame the Jews, also blame those that bend to Jewish pressure.’ 

So, I fully agree with Carolyn Yeager’s assessment of the situation, but I can also fully understand the likes of Nigel Jackson, who still try to keep a comfortable life-style going, and above all, trying to keep a marriage and family going because were he to leave the comfortable realm of his safe musings, then in Australia Section 18C awaits him. We should also note that for the non-German world, matters Holocaust is a most effective mechanism with which to retain the thumb on Germanic hubris.

Mark Weber on Red Ice, 18 November 2015:

"It means really, it's suicidal. It's cultural suicide. Because one of the facets of the prevailing ideology that is fashionable in Western Europe and the United States is that the West, Europeans, or White people, are really bad. There is an enormous encouragement of a self-loathing, of a kind of self-hatred in these societies, because they did all sorts of bad things. And of course, we are told over and over, the Germans in particular did the worst thing of all: they are responsible for the Holocaust.  But by the way other people are responsible too: the Hungarians, the Vatican, the Poles. They are all collectively guilty.
"Well this is crazy. This is madness. No healthy society can sustain itself over a long period of time based in large measure on feelings of guilt and self-loathing. But that's what in place in Europe, and the consequences of course we are seeing again, manifest in the headlines from day to day and week to week."

What is really crazy and mad is that Weber identifies the Holocaust myth as a central cause of the current  crisis in Europe, but refuses to attack it -- even though he knows that it can be attacked -- and urges others also not to attack it. Weber evidently thinks that it's fine for Europeans to go on believing in the Holocaust; they just shouldn't feel too guilty about it. This seems to me psychologically obtuse.
Northern Europeans are prone to guilt. But guilt is just anger turned against oneself. If it can be shown that not I, but somebody else -- some liar -- is the wrongdoer in a situation, that anger gets redirected outward, and all the self-torment becomes vituperation against that other person. This is what happens with people who endured some oppressive religious upbringing that they later threw off: they become bitter critics of that religion and its representatives. This is also what happens when the Holocaust is demonstrated to be a fraud.
But to let people go on believing in the Holocaust while telling them not to feel guilty -- this is an unconvincing half-measure. Who is Mark Weber to tell people that they should not feel guilty? He is certainly not going to back it up by saying that the Jews deserved whatever happened, and he is no priest offering absolution either. Leaving the factual basis for guilt intact while non-authoritatively suggesting that people should not feel guilty is no cure.
For somebody who lacks the authority of a priest, the feasible way to dispel Holocaust-guilt is not to say, "There there, don't feel too bad," but to use facts to show that the claims forming the basis for this guilt are fraudulent.
You can't convince everybody with facts and reason, but you can reach some, and those people -- as the Swedes informed Dr. MacDonald -- are smart people. With smart people you can build something.

I listened to the first hour and what I want to say is that Mark Weber stole the IHR and turned it away from Holocaust Revisionisn, which was its purpose as founded by Willis Carto in 1978. How does that make him a well-regarded figure? When the Weber-assisted revolt took place, one of their main complaints was that Carto was going to move the Journal's (JHR) content from PURE HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM to include historical revisionism, such as WWII, and even some current issues. Oh my, what an uproar was raised by that, led by Weber.

Yet, when the Journal and the whole Institute under Weber's leadership was failing, he decided the problem was lack of interest in HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM and he decided the IHR would shift its attention away from that!!! Weber has continued to produce failure after failure right up until today, but he pretends he's a success because he has control of the popular website (popular because of the strong interest in Holocaust revisionism!), and Henrik Palmgren (and so many other before him) ignorantly go along with it and laud Weber as an important figure in ... what? Hard to say. I find it utterly disgusting.

At the end Weber said he's "been director since 1993, but I've been associated with the IHR since shortly after it was founded - I came here in 1991 to work here." He's not telling the truth; in fact in 1993 he was editor in chief of the IHR's journal (announced in 1992) and it wasn't until 1995 that he became IHR director.

Then he says, "And of course the emphasis has changed over time to take into account just the changing realities." He was the only one who wanted to change it, and he did it in the same fashion that German Chancellor Merkel announced that Germany was open to all asylum-seekers from Syria and other war zones ... without asking the German folk if it was alright with them. When Weber "changed the emphasis" (lterally dropping Holocaust Revisionism overnight) there was shock and objection from most everyone who had been associated with the Institute for all those years. Weber refused to answer any questions they put to him. He really is very similar to Merkel, isn't he?

In explaining himself, he finally says, "Things have changed and we have to take that into account of course." Henrik responds, "Absolutely."  Henrik never mentioned Holocaust once in this first hour, and Weber only twice in passing, the second time when he said "for younger people the second world war is way back there; they hear more about, of course, the Holocaust but - but - I mean, things have changed."

He also said "if you google key words you'll find IHR #1,2 or 3 on search pages for subjects we dealt with in the past." By that, he means Holocaust revisionism -- it's in the past!

So, yes, Mark Weber is the one who, in the role of an expert and head of the IHR, gives "permission" to White Nationalists to avoid addressing the "Holocaust," when Mark Weber is not even a White Nationalist and says so in the IHR Mission Statement ... the current one he wrote.

In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no “position” on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.

You are right, Hadding, that Weber's cowardice knows no bounds, but at the same time, he is nobody's dummy. He knows what he's doing. I don't think there is anyone I have LESS respect for than him; nor therefore can I respect those who follow his cowardly trail. And there are too many of them.

Notice this on the IHR Mission page:

Conferences and Meetings

Speakers at IHR conferences and meetings have included:

John Toland, Pulitzer prize-winning American historian, and author of several best-selling works of history.
John Sack, veteran journalist, war correspondent, historian and novelist. This Jewish-American writer is the author of nine non-fiction books.
Tony Martin, professor of African studies at Wellesley College (Massachusetts).
Paul "Pete" McCloskey, former U.S. Congressman (Rep.-Calif.). This U.S. Marine Corps veteran braved enemy fire in Korea, opposed Richard Nixon on Capitol Hill, and spoke out against Israel's violations of U.S. law and the deceit of the Israel-first Anti-Defamation League.
Hideo Miki, professor at Japan's National Defense Academy and retired Lieutenant General of Japan's Self-Defense Forces.
Tom Sunic, author, scholar and former political science professor and diplomat.
James J. Martin, an American historian with a 25-year career as an educator. Author of several meticulously researched historical studies.
Joseph Sobran, author, lecturer, and nationally-syndicated columnist.
David Irving, British historian and author of numerous bestselling works.
John Bennett, Australian civil liberties attorney and activist, and president of the Australian Civil Liberties Union.

Not a single Holocaust revisionist listed. What a scumbag. Weber's entire reputation is based on the Holo revisionist writing he did. The rest of what he's done is totally forgettable.

IHR Employment Opportunity

Institute for Historical Review

The IHR needs a full-time staff member to join our team here in southern California. He or she will handle website formatting, posting and updating, maintain computer data records, work on outreach and publishing projects, and handle routine office tasks such as product shipping, customer relations and supply procurement. The applicant must have good writing and verbal communication skills, a demonstrated ability to produce quality work on a timely basis, a responsible attitude, initiative, respect for the ideals and goals of the IHR, and be able to work together well with others.

In other words, everything Mark Weber doesn't have. As far as work skills, he can't even post an item on the website. He doesn't write anything. He can't be bothered with keeping track of what's bought in the "store". He wants this employee to take care of shipping out orders and ordering in supplies. Even the "outreach and publishing projects" (sounds like News & Views) are to be taken care of by this single employee. We already know that Weber, for years now, does nothing but read and clip newspapers and talk on the phone. Someone should get hired there as a spy and later write a tell-all book about it.

It seems that Weber's public statements should be damning enough to an intelligent person, without spying on him.
If Weber is advertising for additional personnel, it means that IHR has money to spend. It would not be entirely unprecedented if some entity has promised funding on the condition that IHR turn away from debunking the Holocaust. Nick Griffin says that he was approached by "Zionists" who wanted the BNP to focus on complaining about Muslims and stop complaining about international banking. After BNP turned down that offer, the English Defence League was formed as a competing organization.
Whatever the background story, Mark Weber and the IHR at this point have become detrimental. It is hard to imagine that IHR ever would have become noteworthy doling out the kind of weak broth that Weber now serves. All of the older, valuable material on is available on now. IHR serves no special purpose anymore, except that it soaks up support based on its reputation from what it used to be. Mark Weber has become like a cuckoo in the nest of historical revisionism, causing destruction to the genuine item.

Mark Weber has become like a cuckoo in the nest of historical revisionism, causing destruction to the genuine item.

If Weber is a cuck, then those who follow and publicly express his line of thinking are cucks too.

I suspect the real reason Mr. Weber and Mr. MacDonald do not feel comfortable discussing the Hoax of the 20th Century, is because they hope to travel in Europe in the future without being arrested.
All the draconian Thoughtcrime / Blasphemy laws in Europe need to be repealed!

 If that were their reason, they could say so, couldn't they? But instead they give the reason that it is irrelevant or unnecessary/unimportant. Are they being dishonest in your opinion?

It's not the case that Americans are liable to European laws, unless they say "illegal" things when in those countries where it is criminalized. And Mr. Weber has already spoken out about it plenty in the past (as seen on TV and elsewhere) and he hasn't been troubled legally because of it. Nor would Mr. MacDonald be troubled for simply making a few mild statements of disagreement or doubt here in the U.S. After all, I am in no way asking that MacDonald devote himself to Holocaust Revisionism, but only that he not call it unnecessary and unimportant.

t's not the case that Americans are liable to European laws, unless they say "illegal" things when in those countries where it is criminalized. 
Maybe Monika too mistakenly believed that.  Her 2017 "Sorry Mom" video was made in Canada and posted to Youtube and she was held in Stadelheim prison 10 months for Paragraph 130 for apologizing to her dead mother for her false accusation of doing nothing to stop the alleged mass murder of the magiical 6 million Jews by gas by Hitler's order, giving the world a new bogeyman to take attention away from the doings of the Antichrist children of the father of lies in the synagogue of Satan.

... and passing on your misinformation irresponsibly. I once believed that too, and Alfred and Monica allowed us all to repeat it. But it came out at the trial in Germany that Alfred uploaded the video to Youtube in Germany, never in Canada. Monica knew that all along also; she said so at the trial. That's why Alfred is still in prison, where he seems to want to be. He thought he could make a martyr of himself and get lots of publicity.

What's worse, people are still saying it was uploaded in Canada and that German law thinks it can control the world. No. Not true. So I hope you will stop passing on misinformation so readily and also tell other people that this is an incorrect story.  

You can't even spell her name and you're calling her a liar as well, providing no evidence of your claim.
Monika spent 10 months in German prison BEFORE here trial at which she was sentenced to time served. You're veery confused.

but the evidence is from the trial. Ask her. She is an honest person.

There seems to have been an inordinate amount of interest in “where” the video was uploaded, rather than on the fact that a certain group of people would criminalize the peaceful expression of dissenting views in the first place. Then there is the detail of the world wide web being exactly that, world wide. It should not be relevant where we were when we made the video.
There is a reason why I did not correct people in my letters out of jail as to their misconception of where the video was made. I knew that the court was only interested in those technical details. That would constitute their “evidence” against us, and that would suffice for them to give their verdict and throw away the key.
We were interested in much more than that – we wanted this to be a trial which exposes the lies and illuminates the truth. Alfred purposely did not answer the technical questions in court during the first few days of trial, because the trial would have been over right then and there. The whole idea was to show and give evidence (for example, to show entire videos, not just the “incriminating” bits out of context), and drive this to the point of no return for the judges’ plausible deniability. In other words, when the tables have turned and these criminals are in the dock, they cannot claim that they had not understood the situation. The 20 day trial was an enlightenment for all who were present.
As for the comment about Alfred, all I can say is that we are ALL in some sort of prison, only in some cases you can feel and see the bars, and in other cases those bars are not visible to the eye. With all due respect, dear Carolyn, your disparaging comments about Alfred are not helpful. We are pulling on the same rope are we not?

"We are pulling on the same rope are we not?"

Yes we are, and I have been pulling on it for a lot longer than you and Alfred. That's not to put a value on anyone above another, but only to confirm that my opinion and views are also well-earned. 

You and Alfred (maybe mostly Alfred) wanted to make a splash, a stir, a breakthrough in this long-running holohoax, and you can only be applauded for that. Applauded for your courage, too. But it seems to me now that your decision to upload your video in Germany instead of Canada was well-thought-out for the purpose of getting you arrested in Germany. Why else would you have travelled to Germany and shown up at Sylvia Stolz's hearing if you didn't want to be arrested?

This bothers me because the online discussion went on for quite a while before your arrest about how outrageous it was for Germany to assert jurisdiction over something done in Canada by a Canadian citizen, and you both allowed it to go on and even facillitated it. I call this dishonesty to the thousands of people who believed you and repeated it, no matter what noble reasons you can come up with to justify it. I was distressed when I learned the truth (after the trial), and really "turned off" to the whole saga.

But that's just me. Our enemy uses lies so pervasively, I don't think it ever helps us to copy that behavior. As you well know, there are lies of commission and lies of ommission -- all are lies. For this reason, I cannot bring myself to speak well of Alfred now, although you notice I have not written anything against him or you until Jim Russel decided to pass the lie off on my website. I felt compelled to correct it.

"We were interested in much more than that – we wanted this to be a trial which exposes the lies and illuminates the truth."

Well, I question how you can expose lies with more lies. I think you have harmed your credibility. I'm glad you explained yourself here - maybe you already have elsewhere - I knew you would answer truthfully if asked. So God Bless and Good Luck in the future.  

Dear Carolyn,
"Why else would you have travelled to Germany and shown up at Sylvia Stolz's hearing if you didn't want to be arrested?"
You can call me naive or whatever you want to call me, but your assertion is ludicrous. Maybe I just didn't spend time thinking about it. But how can I "prove" my thoughts? The same as you can not assert what I "wanted". I can only tell you what I know to be true for myself, and no, I did not "want to be arrested"! Nor did Alfred "want" to be arrested. That said, he does everything he humanly can do about the existential crisis we face, full well knowing that it might cost personal freedom. So do I.
Does that mean we "wanted to be arrested"? No! But how does it help us if we shrink back from this work for fear of being arrested? Have they then not already enslaved and imprisoned us?
There are different kinds of prisons - some where you can see and touch the bars and others where the bars are invisible.
Your point about lies of ommission - I do remember being forthright in online interviews as to where the video was made, before I went to Germany. I have little control over rumours to the contrary. I do not remember seeing this "online discussion" which you refer to. I would dearly have liked to correct people on this misconception while I was in jail, but it would have been extremely unwise to do so in my letters, for the reasons I have already stated.
I find your accusation of "exposing lies with more lies" unhelpful. I do not wish to be in a dispute with you, Carolyn, and I have great respect for your work. But this harsh assessment of us is exactly what our enemies love, and I really would prefer not to play into their hands. Both Alfred and I are very willing to admit when we have been wrong about something or have made mistakes. You can rest assured that we are doing the very best that we can, for truth, for love, and for life.
I wish you all the best.

I'm afraid I don't believe you, Monika.

"You can call me naive ..."  I call what you did reckless, not naive. You're too old to be that naive, you knew too much, and as for "not wanting to be arrested" I think you are playing a semantic game with the word "want": you didn't want but you were willing to go to jail when you recklessly exposed yourself.

"I do remember being forthright in online interviews as to where the video was made." I never came across that forthrightness; I heard only the one version, and apparently so did everyone else. The "online discussion" I referred to was not a single discussion, but the overall talk that went on on the Internet.

"I find your accusation of "exposing lies with more lies" unhelpful."
I find your accusation that I am "unhelpful" to your/the cause to be irritating. If telling the truth about where the video was made and uploaded onto the Internet, which was the main and really whole point of the charges against you and Alfred in Germany, and which most people are still unaware of, is upsetting to you unless you can couch it in your own doublespeak -- well, that is a problem.

That might be somewhat credible if they said it themselves, but they don't say that at all. I would find that a more respectable explanation than what they do say, which is in effect: disputing the Holocaust doesn't accomplish anything.
Everybody that has actually been involved with the issue (with the possible exception of Mark Weber) knows that this is ridiculous bunk. If disputing the Holocaust were so pointless, it wouldn't have been made (de facto or de jure) illegal in so many countries.

MacDonald talks about the "culture of the Holocaust" in The Culture of Critique, beginning on page 49 of the PDF:
Aside from that I pretty much agree with your criticism here. I would have much more respect for MacDonald's position if he said "I'm not an expert in that and don't talk about it, but there's people you can go to if you're interested" rather than it shouldn't be talked about by anyone.
And I also agree with Hadding about not mixing this with 9/11 theories, as they are on much shakier ground. It's easy to get caught up in thinking there is a good case for a 9/11 inside job/mossad job while only looking at one side of the argument, but the fact is that most of the conspiracists claims have been sufficeintly answered by debunkers.
We really only have circumstantial evidence of possible foreknowledge, and it really is highly circumstantial, nothing that proves anything.
For example, Larry Silverstein just happening to not show up for work that day can be looked at as technically circumstantial evidence of foreknowledge, but he could just as easily be lucky, and that's hardly comparable to the mountains of solid evidence we have against the Holohoax.
The level of dishonesty that comes from the side of the 9/11 truthers makes many people, myself included, think it's best to distance ourselves from them.
Just to give two quick but very significant examples, the statements by Larry Silverstein and the mossad agents are continuously misquoted and misconstrued, and don't amount to much of anything when rationally analyzed.
1. Larry Silverstein clearly says "they made that decision to pull" and this is constantly misquoted as "I," as in Silverstein himself made a decision to "pull" the building down with a controlled demolition (and then admitted this on TV!). He is talking about the fire chief making the decision. So the fire chief, and indeed the enitre fire department (as they all concur with Silverstein's story), would have to be in on it, if this were a conspiracy, which is ridiculous.
2. Mossad agents went on Israeli TV and said "our purpose was to document the event." This is constantly, constantly misquoted as they were "sent" to document the event (and again, they admit this on TV!?). Two entirely different things. What they were doing was filming which means, objectively, just as probably thousands of others that day, they were indeed "documenting the event." (They are also subhuman scum who were celebrating it, but that doesn't mean they were in on it, just that they knew they would benefit from it, as Bibi even explicitly said the next day.)
If this kind of evidence is the best we can come up with, were left on some pretty thin ice.
As far as the rest we can get into details endlessly so I will just make a blanket statement and say they've all been answered. The book Debunking 911 Myths by Popular Mechanics should be read at the very least by anyone interested in 9/11, before they come to a conclusion about what happened.

Hi Ben,

Thanks very much for the reference. Yes, five pages in the 1998 preface to the book CofC. It's based mainly on two books by liberal Jews: The Holocaust in American Life by Peter Novick and The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finckelstein. Neither were holocaust revisionists and both profess the reality of the holohoax. There is no mention of any revisionist author or of the possibility that the holohoax did not happen as standard history describes it. This sentence gives the rationale for his position:

"[Peter Novick] argues that the importance of the Holocaust is not a spontaneous phenomenon but stems from highly focused, well-funded efforts of Jewish organizations and individual Jews with access to the major media."

From this one can argue that its forced importance is the problem, which is the work of Jews, and without that the holocaust would fade into the background. Thus it's just one aspect of Jewish power.  I say that it has become a source of Jewish power because if it were taken away Jews would lose a lot of the power they now have. It might be good for us that they have invested so much of themselves in the "Holocaust" for when we extend to more people the understanding of how Jews faked it, it will be a tremendous blow. It's happening and it will turn suddenly.


When I said there is tons of evidence that 9/11 was a put-up job, I wasn't thinking about who knew about it in advance. That's pretty much a "let-it-happen' argument. Nor was I thinking about Larry Silverstein's comments or what the "dancing Israelis" said. I'm referring to the collapse of the buildings. The first two could not have been brought down to the ground by airplanes hitting the top part of the building. For the third there is no explanation except for a few fires in the lower floors that would have burned out on their own.

I read what Popular Mechanics had to say back when but I'm not familiar with their book. If it's the same as what they wrote in their articles, it's not at all convincing. How do they explain the 3 building collapses? And if the Fire Chief "made the decision to pull"  Bulding 7, then the building must have been already wired for demolition.

PS. I just read some reviews at Amazon for the Popular Mechanics book you recommend, and it apparently DOES NOT answer the questions I have asked. As I expected. I can't understand what you and Hadding are getting at.

"The first two could not have been brought down to the ground by airplanes hitting the top part of the building."
Yes, they could and did. The controlled demolition argument falls flat right off the bat by the fact that there are no explosions. You can watch the towers collapse in coutless videos and all you hear is basically a whooshing sound. Look up videos of controlled demolitions and you will hear very loud explosions, they're heard for many miles around.
You can also see clearly that the collapses start at the floors that were hit by the planes. All it takes is one floor to collapse to bring down a building (this is what a controlled demolition is for the most part - they blow out the bottom floor and let nature take its course). The planes weighed a million pounds alone and hit the buildings at a very high speed, causing massive damage and hundreds of gallons of jet fuel going up in flames. Steel is very sensitive to heat, it buckles and weakens. I work with it every day and as anyone who does will tell you, this is a constant issue, trying not to warp and deform steel out of parameters when putting any significant amount of heat to it. This damage was coupled with the massive weight above it pressing down, so once that one floor gave way, which that it did is not a huge surprise in hindsight, there was literally millions of pounds falling straight down demolishing everything in its path.
There is much more that can be said about this but to me the argument basically stops dead at the sound issue. No explosion - no controlled demolition. Unless we are going to claim they was some kind of silent bombs, and then we'll be really out in theory land.
"For the third there is no explanation except for a few fires in the lower floors that would have burned out on their own . . . And if the Fire Chief "made the decision to pull"  Bulding 7, then the building must have been already wired for demolition."
(Firstly, again: no expolsion.) "Pull" was the decision to pull out because the damage was already too great to fight and they didn't want more people dying if the building fell, which turned out to be the right decision. The idea that "pull it" was an order to demolish the building is just something conspiracy theorists simply assert, over and over and over, with nothing to back it up. Again, the fire chief gave the order, and all of the fireman who were on the ground tell the same story, that it meant to give up fighting the fires. That would mean that the fire chief, and all the fireman, would have to be consciously in on a conspiracy that just killed hundreds of their brothers, which is ridiculous on its face.
". . . it apparently DOES NOT answer the questions I have asked. As I expected."
Yes, it most certainly does, in great detail.
You have to hear the defense and the prosecution before deciding a case. People who dogmatically believe these conspiracy theories never realize how dishonest they all are. Read that book or some of the 911 debunking site online and you'll quickly find out how much the "truther" side has to rely on myths, cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, baseless assertions, catch phrases with no meaning when scrutinized, etc.
Then think about the Holohoax. All of the arguments against it are solid, and there is a consensus on them, meaning if you asked 100 people worth their salt the 20 top reasons the Holocaust is a hoax you will likely get very similar answers from all of them. With 911 you'll get a bunch of easily debunked nonsense, conflicting theories, lies and outright insanity. No matter what your ultimate opinion on 911 is, they are two different animals entirely, which I think is what Hadding was getting at.

Anybody claiming that Building 7 was taken down with controlled demolition will also have to explain why the roof sagged at one end immediately before the collapse.
In general I think it's not a good idea to mix unrelated issues. The goal in an argument should be to make it simpler by eliminating what's irrelevant.

I do not normally talk about 9/11 and don't think I "mixed" it with Holocaust. But MacDonald had pretty much the same take on both so I thought it worth mentioning. I have not said that WTC buildings 1 and 2 were taken down by ordinary demolition, just that they weren't taken down by airplanes. As to building 7, "pull it" does not mean the same thing as "pull out." But "all the firemen said they understood it that way" so okay. But I still don't believe it because there is NO explanation for why a building that size should collapse into its footprint because of a few fires. I disagree with Ben that damaged upper floors will cause all the floors below to collapse. If the lower floor is taken out, the floors above it can collapse, but not the other way around, in a steel building.

Plus it doesn't have to be a big conspiracy for ordinary people to remain silent in order to keep their jobs, health insurance, pensions, and a normal life. Happens all the time.

I am wondering, Ben, if you now speak so dismissively against "conspiracy theories" because of your association with Andrew Anglin. I am not being unfriendly or antagonizing -- it's just a natural connection to make since he came out so totally against conspiracy theories and he seems to demand a certain amount of consensus from his DS colleagues. People do conspire all the time, so it's not outlandish.

I appreciate this input and it certainly brings me up to date on some topics. Thanks a lot, both of you.

"I do not normally talk about 9/11 and don't think I 'mixed' it with Holocaust. But MacDonald had pretty much the same take on both...."
That would indicate only that he knows very little about the revisionist argument. I hope that he is learning something about it now, at least.
A factor that has contributed to the strength of the arguments of Holocaust Revisionism is that they have developed under extremely hostile conditions. They had to be very good arguments or there would have been no point in even attempting to present them.
By contrast, there is no persecution of "9-11 Truth." Consequently all kinds of stupid arguments for "controlled demolition" etc. have been free to propagate widely.

No, Anglin doesn't demand any kind of consensus (nor would I give one if it were against my true beliefs), we are just like-minded on many things, including conspiracy theories, for the most part. Funnily enough, this is one event that we disagree with. He believes 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy and I don't think there is sufficient evidence for that. We've had some friendly arguments over it.
Not really a big deal though because I have no desire to go against the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy too openly (i.e. publishing articles about it), because I know it will just be divisive, and its ultimately unimportant who people believe were behind it. A fascinating topic to me though.

Good to know. Thanks.

[Peter Novick] argues that the importance of the Holocaust is not a spontaneous phenomenon but stems from highly focused, well-funded efforts of Jewish organizations and individual Jews with access to the major media.
This really doesn't say anything that we don't all know. It only says that Jews have promoted the Holocaust, that it is a subject of Jewish propaganda. That's no rationale for refusing to discuss the Holocaust.
In fact, if the Holocaust were disputed sufficiently, it would be counterproductive for Jews even to mention it. They would eventually have to drop it, because every mention of it would be an occasion for exposing them as liars. That's the advantage of going on the offensive against this big lie instead of trying to sidestep it.
Individuals may avoid some conflict and difficulties by choosing not to dispute the Holocaust, but in the big picture, our collective interest is not served at all by pussyfooting around about this matter.
This argument of Mark Weber's seems to be the real source of MacDonald's position:

The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power. [...] In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one. In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role. [...] In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help. [Mark Weber, January 2009]

See, Weber goes beyond what Novick said. Novick says that the Holocaust is a matter of Jewish propaganda, but Weber asserts that there is no point in arguing with this propaganda.
What Weber said in 2009 is essentially what Professor MacDonald says in 2015. First he says that it is useless to talk about it; then he echoes Weber's point that Jewish power is the real problem:

My view is that talking about the truth, the facts about the Holocaust, is just a no-win game. You can't win anything by it. They immediately typecast you as crazy and all that.
If Jewish power lessened in America, well the Holocaust would lessen too. The only reason the Holocaust is important is because Jews are so important in the media, etc." [K. MacDonald, 5 November 2015]

The first point that Professor makes, echoing Mark Weber, is simply false. Skepticism about the Holocaust is something that the Jews greatly fear, and it has become very widespread outside of the West.
Professor MacDonald's second point, identifying the fundamental problem, is true, but also irrelevant, because Jews in the present time do have this control of mass-media, and we are not going to be taking it away from them anytime soon. Therefore, living in the present and dealing with reality, it is imperative to address their propaganda, and the Holocaust is a major element of Jewish anti-White propaganda, as even Mark Weber still admits.
Even if we built a substantial pro-White media-complex, given that the Jews will also have media, we would be still be using our media much of the time to address and debunk Jewish propaganda. The day when we can simply ignore Jewish propaganda is far from the present.
Apart from this one subject, the Holocaust, the need to address Jewish propaganda seems to be perfectly clear to Professor MacDonald. It is only the Holocaust that must not be addressed. He makes an exception for it. Of course people will ask why there is this inconsistency. It seems to be at least partly due to the regrettable influence of Mark Weber.

This is the first reason that Professor MacDonald gives, as why it would be pointless to ispute the Holocaust:
" They immediately typecast you as crazy and all that."
A few days ago I was talking to some people about the Jewish instigation of the invasion of Iraq. One of my listeners said that I shouldn't say that it was Jews, because then people will think that I am crazy. If you talk about Jews at all in a negative way, you run some risk of being called crazy.
I am sure that nobody has to explain to Professor MacDonald that typecasting as crazy is just one of the ways that Jews try to stop people from talking about something. For several decades, mass-media represented anti-Communists as crazy. They said that anti-Communists imagined "Reds under the bed." I am sure that Professor MacDonald is familiar with this. The way to cope with that is to be careful about what you say and how you say it, so that you don't make the Jews' work easy by coming across as someone who might be crazy.
I talk to a lot of people online who are at various stages of belief and disbelief regarding the Holocaust. Some of them are gradually accepting what I say. Some others, who were once very hostile, are no longer so hostile and are no longer alarmed at skepticism about the Holocaust and will tolerate the discussion, and given enough time I will convince them too. Those who simply dismiss what I am saying as crazy and attack me as crazy, and absolutely cannot be persuaded to give a chance to what I say, seem to be restricted almost entirely to Jews. No loss there, really.
I tend to think that part of the reason why MacDonald takes that threat of being typecast as crazy so seriously in the case of Holocaust Revisionism is that he still thinks that it's crazy himself, which implies that he doesn't know much about it.