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

I am still amazed to find individuals who shudder when someone proposes that a consiracy is a real physical fact. With a little maturity one soon realizes that it is a human trait to conspire, or should I use the verb - "to plan"? As soon as two or more individuals get together, then it is human nature at work -to plan, to construct, to fight, to conquer, to kill, and perhaps then to love. For example, what is happening in Europe with the refugees is not really a conspiracy because the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan has been right out in the open for decades, i.e. the plan to "brown" Europe and to eliminate the European race and merge it into a Eurasian mass.

The official 9/11 conspiracy was designed to replace the old global political Talmudic-Marxist death dialectic that had served its purpose: Communism, which had proven itself to be a total economic failuure, versus Captalism-freedom-and-democracy. The new death dialectic replaced the old enemy of predatory Capitalism-freedom-and-democracy with "terrorism" - Muslim terrorism.

Anyone who still claims that the three 9/11 buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition is either ignorant of physical facts, a liar or both. 

Equate this with the Holocaust - forget all the extraneous matters and focus, as do the Revisionists, on the murder weapon - show me or draw me the homicidal gas chamber. The rest is busy work.

The 9/11 event is still open for debate and not yet legally protected, as is the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

If one wishes to gain an understanding of world events, then 9/11 is a must, and the Holocaust-Shoah is a double must! 

But then always remember: Do not only blame the Jews, the elites, etc. but also blame those that bend to their pressure. And recall that real freedom means liberating yourself from your own self-inflicted immaturity. That's as much as anyone can personally achieve so that you have that home within your own mind and do not have to play the victim or to scapegoat in order to look into the mirror.

You have heard about the Viagra tablet - now  comes in eye drop form. What's the effect? It enables you to take a hard look at yourself!

E. Michael Jones, by contrast, is not deterred from his proper course by the Holocaust-bogey. First he cites 100% demonstrable facts that make the Holocaust narrative in general seem dubious, as a collection of "Jewish fables." Then he indicates that not questioning the Holocaust means subordination to Jewish authority.

From E. Michael Jones, L'Affaire Williamson: The Church and Holocaust Denial:

[W]hat exactly is holocaust revisionism? Do Catholics now have to accept the Hitler’s diaries as authentic? What about the stories of lampshades made out of the skin of Jewish concentration camp inmates? What about the flaming pits which gave the name to the holocaust? What about the electrocution and head-bashing machines? What about the touching story of the all-Negro 761st tank battalion which liberated the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, as depicted on the PBS documentary “Liberators”? Was that part of the Holocaust narrative? If so, it was exposed as a hoax by Jeffrey Goldberg and others in the New York Times, which had previously given serious, if naïve, coverage to this story. What about the equally touching story of love in the concentration camps that was recounted on Oprah and exposed as a hoax the week before l’affaire Williamson broke? Professor David O’Connell was accused of going to “the brink of Holocaust Denial” by none other than thought cop Deborah Lipstadt for writing an article in Culture Wars about the inconsistencies in Elie Wiesel’s holocaust narrative Night. Who knew that literary criticism could land you in jail?

 

.... The big issue at the heart of the Williamson affair is religious. It has to do with which religion is true: Chrisitianity or what Rabbi Jacob Neusner referred to as “the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption.”  Elie Wiesel made the situation clear in 1971 when he claimed that “The sincere Christian knows that what died in Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity.” L’affaire Williamson was an attempt on the part of the world’s Jewish organizations to force the pope to accept their dogmas as normative for Catholics. It was an attempt to force Christians to accept what St. Paul in Titus 1:14 refers to as “Jewish fables” as superior to Christian dogmas. This is not to deny the reality of Jewish suffering during World War II. This admission, however, must be joined to a similar concession, namely, that no one can define the boundaries of the Holocaust narrative. Must Catholics accept parts of the Holocaust narrative which everyone now admits never happened? St. Paul tells us that there are “a great many people . . . who talk nonsense and try to make others believe it, particularly among those of the Circumcision.” Instead of telling us to go along with these liars “who ruin whole families by teaching things which they ought not to, and doing it with the vile motive of making money,” Paul tells Titus to “stop taking notice of Jewish myths.” It’s a message that Christopher Ferrara would do well to take to heart rather than demand that Bishop Williamson give his assent to a narrative full of  “Jewish fables,” many of which have gone down the memory hole over the past half century. Lest anyone think I am exaggerating we shoud remember that the ADL has denounced Norman Finkelstein as a Holocaust Denier (he has never doubted the existence of gas chambers or that millions of Jews were systematically killed) and that Alan Dershowitz has gone as far as to say that the leading expert on the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, is to be found on the spectrum of Holocaust Denial because of his support of Finkelstein!

I don't agree with everything that Jones says. In the passage above, I don't agree with the statement that the Holocaust cannot be defined. The essence of the Holocaust certainly can be defined. It is supposed to be a unique event, as Professor Faurisson says: an attempt to kill all the Jews of Europe systematically, which means that the Holocaust and gassings are one and the same. If you show that there is no evidence of gassed Jews then you have invalidated that which makes "the Holocaust" into the unique event that it is supposed to be, thereby essentially disproving the Holocaust.

I am not a member of any church nor a believer in the Bible, but it seems to me that Jones' reliance on an ancient intellectual and cultural tradition, Catholicism, gives him moral support, and thereby a certain confidence and tenacity in opposing this Jewish imposition that may be harder to achieve for someone rooted in merely scientific thought.

If the movement for survival of our race had some pride in itself as a tradition, the way Jones has pride in his Catholicism, we too should be indignant at the idea of bowing to pressure from our known enemies and deferring to a "Holocaust" that is dubious on its face.

We have some tradition, but to embrace it we must attack that which defames it: the Holocaust.

Thanks for posting this.  I am disappointed that MacDonald cops out on this.  Thank you for your excellent work.