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.


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!

The relevant physical facts are that structural steel will collapse under its own weight at 1700°F and that the fire in the Twin Towers was hotter than that, and that Building 7 was on fire internally for seven hours before it collapsed.
There is no positive evidence for controlled demolition. When I have argued about the matter, I have found that the responses consist only of nitpicks that don't change the fact that it's perfectly conceivable that the buildings would fall without controlled demolition. There is no compelling reason to believe otherwise.
The Holocaust and "controlled demolition" are both conspiracy-theories lacking specific evidence. There is no specific evidence of gassed Jews, and no specific evidence of controlled demolition. We are supposed to believe that both of these deeds were carried out without leaving specific evidence. I don't believe either claim.
Revisionism is fundamentally not a conspiracy-theory, Dr. Toeben, but the debunking of a conspiracy-theory by asking for evidence and showing that some of the supposed evidence does not prove the point. Professor Faurisson, whom you paraphrase as if he were on your side of this issue, has already long ago specifically dismissed your hypothesis of "controlled demolition" as something that revisionists should not be promoting.

There is no positive evidence for controlled demolition?
Are you serious about Building 7 being brought down by an office fire? I didn't realize you still believed in physical miracles.
Please, re-inventing the wheel, then falling into pure sophistry is not the way to construct a sound premise from which to gain an understanding of global events. It's the old specific to the general and the reverse from the general to the specific so as to develop an overarching cohesive explanatory narrative. 
Have you ever flown light planes, parachuted, fought wild bush fires? Do you know anything about NATURE at work and what subordinate role humans play in this process?
So, you'll let the Holocaust go as a belief system but you still cling to the 9:11 belief system. The question then is: Cui Bono?
The Revisionists have won the argument on paper but not yet have the legal clout to seal that victory.
Likewise with 9:11 - the evidence that it was controlled demolition on all three buildings is a proven fact - but not yet in law!
There are too many legal onstacles that need to be undone before the physical facts can be openly exposed, for example the insurance payouts. This is much like the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal that still locks up issues that are still legally protected, and that legal fact directly flows into the Holocaust issues.
The pattern of deception in matters Holocaust and 9:11 is essentially identical. 
Have a view of the latest clip about 9-11:  
Remember, as soon as two or more individuals get together we have a conspiracy developing - why? Because it is in our human nature to plan things, to do things, to acquire things, from Nature itself and from other individuals. 
For example, the current European invasion is following the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan that wishes to see Europe become "brown" with the aim of exterminating the native Europeans by merging them into a multicultural mass-mess, as Barbara Lerner Spectre so clearly enunciates, is NOT a conpsiracy because it is right out in the open.
So, Hadding. continue to be critical of the basic premise of the Holocaust conspiracy: no need to provide physical evidence of gassings/murder weapon, etc., and continue to believe in the 9:11 conspiracy: planes and office fire brought down three buildings.
The USA is certainly in intellectual decline, and continuing with the Halford MacKinder/Brzeziński plan for a "brown" Eurasian landmass so as to contain Germany will also not rescue those from moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Still, such is life!

The question is not cui bono, but whether "controlled demolition" -- an extraordinary claim, since controlled demolition normally cannot be done inconspicuously -- is necessary to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. It absolutely is not necessary.
In 1970 there were two fires in skyscrapers built contemporary with the Twin Towers. There was a realization that skyscrapers of this type were not safe. These are the features of skyscrapers built in that era that rendered them firetraps, some of which (other than the heat-activated elevator-buttons, which were no longer in use) definitely contributed to the death-toll in the Twin Towers:
W. Robert Powers of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters investigated the two Manhattan fires and reported hazards in one or both buildings which, he said, are typical of modern construction. Among them:
-- Elevator buttons which reacted to the fires, calling cars to the burning floors and opening doors to the flame and smoke.
-- Spray-on insulation improperly applied to steel members, allowing heat to warp the girders and increasing the danger of structural collapse.
-- Separation between floor slabs and outer walls, which allowed fire to spread to other floors.
-- Fixed windows which could not be opened and combustible furnishings including rugs, drapes, paneled walls, wooden desks, stuffed sofas and cabinets filled with papers. 
-- "Central Core" design in which stairwells, elevator shafts, and air conditioning ducts are located in the heart of the building, forming a chimney for smoke passage and narrowing escape routes. [Associated Press, 10 August 1971]
Note that according to Powers there is danger that a skyscraper of this type will collapse in a fire, even without some of the thermal insulation being scraped off as happened when the airliners collided with the towers. The Twin Towers were a disaster waiting to happen, more or less predicted already in 1971.

Since 1994 the factuality of matters Holocaust has been established and since then the task has been to overcome the powers that control the official Holocaust narrative that pervert fatual truths with outright lies.
Did you have a view of the latest 9:11 clip? Likewise with 9:11 - the physical facts don't support the official conspiracy theory that a bunch of Arabic-speaking individuals did the job. 
I find it quite funny how individuals get all exasperated when their cherished belief system is challenged by the physical world. Such individuals dare not even think outside of the orthodoxy without a panic attack coming on.
And I have also noted that the older such believers get, and the closer they get to ther own termination date of human existence, they panic and flail about - seeking comfort in some quickly assembled body of verbiage where self-deception instead of clarity of thought reigns supreme.
So, any physical event that is dialectically designed to support a narrative of desperation will in time break down because as Schopenhauer so clearly stated, the process of truth emerges in three steps - first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and finally we have those who will jump the gun and claim they always knew the truth, anyway!
For me personally, I can only wait and see how the 9:11 discussion will inevitably follow the Holocaust narrative, and that means a couple of generations need to pass on before a new generation with moral and intellectual courage dares grasp the nettle of factual truths.
I now bow out of this brief excursion into 9:11 because to convince true believers that the three towers were not brought down through controlled demolition would upset them so much that I could never get them to read Jaques Barzun's classic: From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of European Civilization. Therein the moral decay, the stench of corruption, clarifies our current situation - and I close by again asking: Cui Bono?

"Likewise with 9:11 - the physical facts don't support the official conspiracy theory that a bunch of Arabic-speaking individuals did the job."
The question of who flew the planes and how is completely separate from "controlled demolition." I have no opinion on those other questions. It is only "controlled demolition" that I am sure is invalid.
When you ask Cui bono? you are basically imagining what other people's motives are and inferring what they would do based on those presumed motives. Since the process of imagining other people's motives tends toward oversimplification and caricature, the inferred action may not be what was actually done. For example, Americans can easily imagine that the Germans wanted to gas all the Jews. It has a kind of logic to it that people find persuasive. But it's not what happened. This kind of omniscience-through-imagination is a great danger.

I wasn't going to reply because it is time-wasting for me to do so - the interconnectedness of the web of deceit is obvious and separation causes confusion.
Have a view of this, again -   

Not convincing, Fred. It starts with some Negro who got a degree in engineering but never worked as an engineer, saying that he thinks it was controlled demolition. BAD START. Then some English policeman who has seen controlled demolition thinks that the collapse of Building 7 looked like controlled demolition. Okay, we all knew that.
I am a little more than halfway through and apparently I've already seen the best arguments that this documentary has to offer in regard to 9-11, because it's now rambling on about all kinds of unrelated conspiracy-theories. Whoever made this is a scatterbrain.
I found the part about insiderp-trading the day before 9-11 interesting, and somewhat credible because of the Odigo instant messages to Israel that referred to the 9-11 attack before it happened. Too bad that it didn't give more detail about that.

The question of who flew the planes and how is completely separate from "controlled demolition." I have no opinion on those other questions. It is only "controlled demolition" that I am sure is invalid. ...Hadding

First, everything about those planes and who was flying them is part of that event of the Towers "falling." You can't say "I am sure about one aspect of it, but I know nothing about the rest." For that very reason, you cannot be sure about it.

I think you must know that the Arabs who were identified by the FBI as being the pilots were not professional pilots and could not have maneuvered those two planes so skillfully. It's true one of the four claimed pilots had been or was a pilot for an Arab Airline, but he came forth later alive and well somewhere in Arabia-land, as did 5 or  6 others who were pictured among the "19 hijackers." No explanation that I know of was ever given by the FBI, nor were the named hijackers changed. It stands to reason there were no survivors in those planes, so these FBI-identified men were not in them.

Therefore, who was flying them? Were they remote controlled? Were they commercial or military planes? These questions are necessary to know who brought the buildings down, which would help clarify how they were taken down. If you can't answer any of these questions, then your "fires brought the buildings down" argument is of little value.

I see no inherent connection between "controlled demolition" and the other questions, unless you start from the false premise that the buildings could not collapse because of fire. In that case there is an incentive to develop a conspiracy-theory about plane-crashes used as a cover-story for controlled-demolition.
But I have already posted an expert opinion from 1971 that says that structures of this type can collapse because of fire. Thus there is no basis for asserting "controlled demolition."

You see no inherent connection because you don't know much at all about 9/11. This is shown by the fact you didn't know about the insider trading and put options based on pre-knowledge of the event until now. [You replied to me that you had heard of it.] You don't answer me about the pilots because you have no explanation for it - you didn't know about that either. All the events concerning 9/11 connect together and you can't simply say they don't.

You say that your "expert" says this type of structure can collapse from fire. But "pancake" floor by floor in a totally smooth 8 to 10 second free-fall due to fire in only one part of the building?

And yes, I know what NIST says, and Popular Mechanics and National Geographic too.

But there are other "experts" just as qualified who say differently. So this is the end of this topic, which has ruined what was otherwise a very good comments thread. No more.

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.