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

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.

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.
 

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.
 

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. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-...

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.

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 see.............as 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. 

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 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!

MacDonald talks about the "culture of the Holocaust" in The Culture of Critique, beginning on page 49 of the PDF: http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.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.

[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.