The Holocaust and the conundrum of self-blame
By Carolyn Yeager
The release of Eric Hunt's new Holocaust revisionist film “Questioning The Holocaust: Why We Believed, Part 1” has brought to the fore some disagreements within the revisionist community. Nothing too unusual because they've always been there, but interestingly, it spills over, just by chance, to include the Alt-Right community too.
What I'm speaking of is revisionist Michael Hoffman's complaint to and about Eric Hunt, and also Kevin MacDonald's recent article posted at The Occidental Observer titled, “Northern Europeans less prone to “blaming the other.” These separate items come together in the question of “Who is to blame” for the problems facing White European peoples in the 21st century.
When it comes to the “Holocaust”, the so-called Alternative Right de facto position (wherein I place Kevin MacDonald) is that Hitler was responsible and all we can do is admit it and move on. It does no good to waste any time on it.
Revisionism, on the other hand, deals in depth with the Holocaust in which Hitler plays an important role because the never-found “Plan” to exterminate the Jews allegedly was ordered by him. Most revisionists think the mainstream image of Hitler also needs revising, and it can only get better since it could not get any worse. But there are those who want to leave Hitler where he is, in the dog house, and deal only with certain specific falsifications and “exaggerations” that have allowed the Holocaust legend to be used as a tool for Jewish rapaciousness. Michael Hoffman is one of these.
Eric Hunt's new film adds some detail to how Jews have created false horror stories from a situation that was not horrible enough to suit their purposes. The two major themes are 1) explaining how the homicidal gas chamber / fake shower room lie worked and 2) captioning photos of emaciated victims of Allied bombing to falsely present them as victims of Nazi gassing, shooting or starvation programs. But strangely, Michael Hoffman finds this unfair to Jews!
Before the film was released for viewing, but was announced online at Questioningtheholocaust.com, Hoffman sent an email to Hunt asking him to alter the title to “Questioning the Nazi Gassings.” His reason was that to question the “Holocaust” connotes that you are questioning the persecution of Judaic people and their victimization and murder by mass shooting, and other documented acts of Nazi homicide, as he put it. Hoffman knows who he blames, and it is not the Jews.
When the film was released with the title unchanged, Hoffman composed a "Critique of the Movie" and emailed it to thirteen revisionists, including Eric Hunt. In it, he first quoted both Hitler and Goebbels making what he considers 'genocidal' statements toward Jews. (I disagree they are genocidal.) Then he wrote:
Hitler and Goebbels’ genocidal views of Judaic persons are absent from Part One of your film and this is unfortunate because by omitting them, and without attempting to explain them or place them in context, your film itself becomes a type of propaganda. When Israeli rabbis talk about Palestinians the way Hitler and Goebbels spoke (as above) about Judaic persons, we rightly declare that the rabbis are preaching genocide. If we hold them to this standard, how can we fail to hold the top Nazis to the same standard, based on their own documented statements?
Hoffman is taking a universalist view by equating Palestinians with Jews in Germany and Israeli rabbis with 'Nazis' when the situations are far from identical. It is this universalist outlook that is really the crux of his difference with Eric Hunt's film and with people like myself. In Hoffman's moral universe, Jews are equal to Germans and must be treated equally and their case given equal time in the film (even though the film is meant to counteract the endless hours given over to the purely Jewish version of the “Holocaust” in the mainstream media). Hoffman doesn't take his own side. Even though he is of German heritage, he shows no favoritism for Germans over Jews, or over Palestinians.
Hoffman says he doesn't believe there were homicidal gas chambers, but that doesn't mean too much because he still believes many Jews died at the hands of the 'Nazis' and that needs to be pointed out. He finishes with:
The deaths of (at the very least) many tens of thousands of Judaic civilians at the hands of the Nazis was not always, or mainly, due to typhus or starvation. In many cases they were intentionally liquidated by gunfire. Soviet Communists and their western Allies were no less guilty of crimes like this, but to whitewash the German crimes that were indeed committed, weakens your argument and makes your movie an easy target for dismissal, which would be a shame since you make many valid and important points.
I am amazed at this kind of thinking, although I've long been aware of Hoffman's extremely anti-Nazi views. Still, to show greater concern for “Judaics” than for the people of your own blood, in the name of fairness, and probably Christian cross-racial values, is a fault, not a virtue … even in the eyes of Kevin MacDonald, according to his article linked to above. His subject is a standard one for him – the altruism and individualism of Northern Europeans that causes us to “more readily take the point of view of the other when assigning blame.” MacDonald tells us how and even why this works, and that it works against our best interests in the racial struggle we are now engaged in. But he does not tell us what to do about it. Of course, obviously we should take our own side. But does he? Sadly, not all the time. He is himself an example of this northern European trait, trapped in it himself, along with Michael Hoffman. MacDonald writes:
When Michael Polignano wrote a book titled Taking Our Own Side, he put his finger on a major problem for Western individualists: We tend to take a neutral point of view in moral issues —not biased in our own favor or what’s good for our group. We tend to take the point of view of the emotionally disinterested, rational observer, not swayed by personal interest. So we are less likely to blame others for problems and try our best to see the situation from the other person’s point of view.
Not biased in our own favor. But he acknowledges we need to be biased in our own favor. Bias is good, when it's for our own group against a competing group. It's difficult for Northern Europeans, however, and he doesn't know how to change that. He gives us no advice. In fact, he ends on a down note, pointing to our extinction:
The European proneness to moral idealism and disinterested moral reasoning thus becomes part of the ideology of Western suicide.
This pretty well sums up Michael Hoffman. It also sums up a lot of MacDonald's readers if you go by those who comment at TOO. Pretty pathetic, because MacDonald consistently points out that Jews are hostile to Whites [Jews .. are quick to “blame the other.”], yet the one White leader that he refuses to give approval to is the only one who actually took measures to protect his people from the hostile actions of the Jews. This leader forged his nation of 70 million into a racially self-aware unit through fantastic programs that developed discipline and love of one's own blood kin. He eventually saw the necessity of including all of Europe in that. But once the “Jewish genocide” libel was brought against him and his top leaders by the Allies immediately following the terrible, lawless World War 2, he was effectively turned into poison. The “Holocaust” reigns supreme, to the great profit of the Jews and the detriment of European peoples everywhere. Pay, pay, pay.
One would think there would be no question for our people but to oppose the holocaust legend, but sadly that is not the case. I want to point this out, because the blindness and the hypocrisy go so deep that they can be hard to see. MacDonald lectures on “blaming the other” as something we must learn to do, but when it comes to “Holocaust” he is unwilling to do so. Is it because he fears the consequences? Or because he's too new to it after years of accepting it without question? The Alt-Right confusedly thinks that Jews are White, while taking the position that the Holocaust really happened pretty much as given and millions of Jews lost their lives because ordinary Germans under Hitler suddenly turned into murderers. Do we see anti-Germanism at play here?
Why doesn't MacDonald take his own advice and “blame the other” instead of blaming his own people? Why isn't he taking our side when it comes to this one subject? If he did, I am quite sure he wouldn't have to be so hung up on the topic of Western suicide.
Category
Holocaust RevisionismBookmark/Search this post with
- 1319 reads
Comments
...This leader forged his
...This leader forged his nation of 70 million into a racially self-aware unit through fantastic programs that developed discipline and love of one's own blood kin. He wanted to include all of Europe in that..."
Really? Ask the peoples of Eastern Europe how this leader wanted to "include" them into that!
Really
He included the people of Eastern Europe who did not fight against him. If you fought against him and worked with his enemies, how could you be included? They disincluded themselves.
Spot-on
Carolyn, again viam monstrare = you are showing the way!
Thank you, Fred
What a nice thing to say.
Your analysis of the reaction to Eric Hunt's new documentary
Thank you for your pathbreaking analysis. If you haven't done so already you should read Ben Klassen's Nature's Eternal Religion and The White Man's Bible. To Klassen what is good for the white race is good and what is bad for the white race is evil.
Objectivity
Our Jewish master Henry Kissigner once said that there is no such thing as objectivity. Jewish entrepreneur Jack Rosenberg (a.k.a. Werner Erhard of Erhard Seminars Training (EST) used to say: "You may be right but that is all you are. Just right". That is what we are up against. Jesus once said to the Jews: "You are of your father the devil who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Jesus knew what he was dealing with. If Michael Hoffman and Kevin McDonald knew what they are dealing with they would stop reading from the enemy's script.
Propaganda
You quote Michael Hoffman as saying that Eric Hunt's new documentary is propaganda. I agree that it is propaganda but it is also true. The word propaganda has not always been a perjorative term. It was the truth that was disseminated in digestible form. Hunt's documentary makes a few very important points and repeats them over and over again. I personally find this very helpful. The Holycost is an extremely complicated subject unless you have been to the respective camps and have the engineering background to make fine distinctions. Hunt is presenting his case and he does so truthfully. He doesn't need to represent every point from the enemies prosecutory version.
What about Jürgen Graf?
What about Jürgen Graf? In his book "Der geplante Volkstod" he says he believes that 1-1,5 millions of jews were shot in the USSR by the Einsatzgruppen or by the Baltic troops. And the losses of the jewish partisans are not included in this. If I understood he believes in the russian documents and his opinions are not dfferent from the mainstream. He lives in Russia, but he said that the coming book from him and Mattogno will come to quite the same conclusions.
I don't believe that there were a genocide of jews in the East. Just criminals and partinsans were shot and there were many shootings because of the deeds of the partisans but these were justified and legal. When the russians came back, the towns were full of jews. I think the real number must be 100 000 or 150 000.
What do you mean by the Baltic troops?
There is no way the Einsatzgruppen shot and buried (with no trace?) 1-1.5 million in the time and with the resources they had. You need to properly translate a large enough portion to include everything he says about it. But I know they were coming up with big numbers from the Soviet Archive. I heard from both of them, that they were disappointed in what they found and I would not be happy with it ... but it was a couple years ago. I have to look for it, which takes time that I don't have. This, however, has nothing to do with Eric's documentary Part 1.
When I now read the book I
When I now read the book I must say that he says the number is just 300 000 soviet jews. But that does not include deaths in the partisan-war and diseases in the ghettos or in the KZs etc. These were not murders due to the religions or ethnicity, but the 300 000 were according to them. They also believe in "Judenaktionen" and "annihilation" of 300 000 jews without any good reason (punishment due to acts of terror or any other military benefits). 1 million or 1,5 millions is Graf's own opinion about the deaths of the european jews due to persecution. In other words: So many jews perished because of Hitler. I think the number is 300 000
The baltic, ukrainian and the belorussian police forces were helping the Einsatzgruppen in the war towards the partisans. Everybody has lied about them a lot and about the pogroms in 1941 in the Baltic countries and in the Ukraine/Belorussia.
I think that the jewish bolscheviks have forged a huge number of documents and put them into the archives that they stole from the Germans. I have just read a book called "Wehrmacht and the holocaust" by Walter Post. He is almost a mainstream holohoaxer. I can not trust at all in the german courts in the 60's. But they were sometimes quite undestanding towards the SS-men, if they said they had taken their orders from Wehrmacht. Sometimes they doomed the propaganda about the executions and said that there were just normal "reprisals" f.e. in Sluzk. There were 4000 jews just after the "Massaker" and the number of the killed jews were about 300. Nowdays there is a "document" about thousands of killed jews.
I don't believe in the Kriegstagebuch of oberst Andrian. He is just a lying officer that accuses the SS-troops and the NSDAP. He has left his memories in the archives in 1960 just before they started the new series of the trials of the SS-men. What Post presents sounded very laughable. I think someody can have blackmailed Andrian and he of course tries to save himself and the Wehrmacht. The SS-men and other soldiers are not trustable in these trials. The Wehrmacht has also many skeletons because the generals and their officers were in many cases traitors who murdered their own people with their treasons and they always accuse SS-men and NSDAP with the jews.
In my opinion the Einsatzgruppen and their helpers were just fighting the partisans and they did a good job. They were not murderers. Thank God Mattogno and Graf differ from Hilberg and others whose number is 1,35-2,2 millions. But they are wrong with their 300 000 murders either.
Hoffman wrote about shooting
Hoffman wrote about shooting of the civilians. What happened in the East have much to do with the holohoax. Maybe Hunt will speak aout this in the future. I was so disappointed after reading Graf's book that I had to speak about it.
Balts and Jews
There is a history of friction between Jews and the Baltic peoples. The earliest negative publicity about the German occupation of the Baltic states talks mostly about violence from the Balts, not from the Germans. Thousands of Jews flocked to Riga after the German occupation, I assume because they understood that the Germans could protect them there.
The way to deal with this
The way to deal with this objektivitätsfimmel (mania for objectivity), as Hitler called it, is to feed it with facts and logic that will lead it in the right direction.
Trying to ignore the Holocaust is no answer.
I really think that Kevin MacDonald should shut up about the Holocaust, since he admits that he knows very little about it and refuses to learn more. With the responsibilities that he holds, he really has a duty to learn the Revisionist arguments and to espouse them to the extent that he finds them correct, but since he refuses to do that, the next best thing would be if he simply shut up about the whole subject.
As for Michael Hoffmann, I have never had a good impression of him. Although he is on the correct side of certain questions, his arguments lean too much on whiny appeals to pity. He even condemns racism. He's not pro-White: he's a Catholic fanatic.
The big problem with Hoffman's position on the Holohoax, as you describe it here, is that he does not bother to define the issue. Mark Weber and David Irving also don't bother to define the issue. They accept the extremely broad and nebulous Jewish use of the term, whereby Anne Frank, who died of typhus, is counted as a "victim of the Holocaust." Of course you can never say that there was no Holocaust if you don't even specify what it is!
Faurisson takes the correct approach of defining the issue first. The Holocaust is supposed to be the systematic killing of European Jewry by the specific means of gas-chambers. It is, furthermore, the killing of Jews only for being Jews. This Holocaust, Professor Faurisson declares, is a big Jewish lie.
I brought it up, not MacDonald
Hadding, I need to point out that MacDonald did not mention the Holocaust or anything close to it in his recent article which I quoted. I made the connection because his article was about "taking our own side" and our difficulty in "blaming the other." So I put MacDonald into the holocaust ring again, and he's probably not happy about it.
However, you might be referring to other writers for TOO who have written about Holocaust issues recently, and gotten some facts wrong. As editor, MacDonald has some responsibility for that.
I especially like the first and last paragraphs of your comment. Very good!
Even if MacDonald did not say
Even if MacDonald did not say anything about the Holocaust in this instance, he has at times done so. His editorial position is that the Holocaust is fact. I consider it pointless, even masochistic, to complain about Jewish use of the Holocaust, as MacDonald does, while treating the narrative itself as sacrosanct. This refraining looks more like a product of fear rather than good judgment.
Mr. Hadding,
Mr. Hadding,
If this Hoffman really is a knowledgeble Catholic, then he would know how racist against Jews our Church has rightfully been throughout most of our history. For many centuries we kept them under tight control for 7 generations after they had converted to Catholicism. Disabilities included barring them from certain positions including becoming Pope etc.
In Spain until deep in the 1960's the 1% rule was applied even within the Church to such an extent that a priest who had just one drop of Jewish or Saracen blood could not say a mass in public in southern Spain. Until deep in the 19th century army officers had to prove to a tribunal that their wives were free from jewish or saracen blood.
There is even an order of monks created in the 15th century that still exists that is white only. The sources for my comments are found under limpieza sangre laws and a book called the Plot Against the Church.
The Catholic position on Jews
The Catholic position on Jews is that they cease to be Jews when they are baptized. Catholicism has a lot of wisdom about the Jews but on that point they are absurdly naive, and not at all racist.
Mr. Hadding,
Mr. Hadding,
They traditionally suffer disabilities within the Church based on their blood lines including at times applying the 1% rule. That is based on race. And that is after they have been baptised. Of course Jews are part of the Church after baptism while still subject to suspicion and control.
By your definition of matters Mother Mary and the 12 apostles would not be Christians but Jews.
I suppose your concept of race differs from mine. I consider race and country secondary to religion which is why I am a supporter of monarchy and Catholic fascism. Still, Catholic fascism and national socialism were allies years ago and there is no reason not to be allies now.
.
Christina means "one-drop" rule
Hadding is correct on this one. Jews accepted into Roman Catholicism have always been considered Catholic if the conversion was genuine. The "one-drop rule" is not officially applied in Roman Catholicism - although wariness of Jewsih converts, particularly in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, was prudent due to the proliferation of crypto-Jews - admitted by all, including Jews. It is widely thought that Torquemada himself was of Converso stock. It is also widely known that the early Jesuits, and St. Ignatius of Loyola himself were made up of Coversos. There were actually quite a few Coversos that were thought to be genuine, and they tended to be the most zealous with their former co-religionists. "One-Drop" rules are from the secular side of things (which, granted, is a fuzzy thing in the Spanish Reconquista era). This is how I have always understood the situation. Please give specific examples showing you to be correct and Hadding to be incorrect if you think otherwise.
Torquemada and other Jews
I don't think that Ignatius of Loyola was a converso Jew. The National-Socialists would have claimed it if there were good evidence for it. So far as I know, he was Basque. Torquemada was a Jew and I have read a Jewish author who affirmed that the founders of the Society of Jesus were largely Jews.
Mr. Blake,
Mr. Blake,
I gave examples. Look up the race purity laws within the Spanish Catholic Church. I already quoted the southern Spain example on priests in Spain until the 1960's. I already said read the book on Church history that was how the Church treated baptised Jews up until the seventh generation. A book that explains the Church laws quite well is the Plot Against the Church.
In 1496 Pope Alexander approved the purity laws for an order of monks called the Hieronymites. The Church of Cordoba had racial purity ceremonies.
THAT WAS NOT SECULAR THAT WAS WITHIN THE CHURCH. IT WAS NOT ALWAYS PRACTICED BUT THAT WAS FREQUENTLY THE CHURCH PRACTICE AND LAW PROMULGATED BY THE POPE AND THE CHURCH.
THE RACIAL PURITY LAWS WERE AT TIMES BOTH WITHIN THE CHURCH AND SECULAR.
Since Church and State are supposed to be united in Catholic belief they were both done.
All this is well known and easy to look up. I am quite aware that a baptised Jew is a Catholic but was still frequently under disability within the Church.
No more comments on the Catholic Church
Take your conversation about Jews in the Church somewhere else. Good comments that actually apply to the article get lost in the crowd of irrelevancy.
"I am reliably informed that
"I am reliably informed that a young man . . . recently read Professor Arthur Butz's definitive expose of the "six million" hoax and promptly resigned his membership in one of our miniscule National Socialist organizations on the grounds that Professor Butz had convinced him that Hitler not only did not kill six million jews but did not even try."
Revilo Oliver, The Jewish StrategyChapter 1: The Plight of Westen Man
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/08/revilo-olivers-the-jewish-strategy/
And I typed a long comment laboriously on my ipad only to find that Hadding had already said the exact same things but better.
Hoffman
If you go here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRFFN8eT2w8
(basically saying today's Jews are not the 'Judaics' of Moses' day - sic),
you will find a comment by user https://www.youtube.com/user/michaelahoffman
to this effect:
"The title of this interview is objectionable and contrary to the spirit of my words. I never speak of a 'Jewish Hoax.' I don’t fall into that linguistic trap. The interview is focused on the accurate parsing of words and yet it is titled with an obtuse generalization which I eschew. I know of no 'Jewish hoax.' I protest the ascription of such a term to my work. Salvation is of the Jews."
I can appreciate Hoffman's concern over clumsy and unhelpfully worded public utterances, but there is something in the tenor of this comment that invites reflection. Incidentally, listen to Hoffman from about 8m.
Also: I heard or read fairly recently that Hoffman is in fact an ethnic Jew who converted to RC. I have not verified that and regret now not recording the source. It was the first time I had come across that assertion and was shocked. For all I know it may not be true. I offer the remark purely to obtain the source, should anyone have it.
MacDonald Bears False Witness
A lie in order to be a lie must contain a truth. Without the anchor of truth, the lie would sink, dissolve and disintegrate. The truth is indestructible.
Writers like Michael Hoffman,Kevin MacDonald and Glenn Beck embrace the dissent in order to nullify the dissent. This is made acutely manifest by the temerity of these "professors" concerned with easy sales.
Years ago the California Orange County Resgister pubiished my "Letter to the Editor" entitled, "I Was at Dachau Too." My eye witness account affirmed that the claim that the Christian German Nationalists conducted genocide of the Jews is false. On that same day a deluge of death threats arrived and the tires of my Mercedes Unimog were slashed.
Nevertheless, I still live and afffirm the truth: "There will be peace and prosperity in the Middle East and everywhere else when the Jews are removed."
READ: "A Short History of the Balfour Declaration." www.barnes review.org
Wannabe Professors: Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise they became as fools."
Reinhold
TOO and Kevin MacDonald
I can't view the video. I'm in Berlin and it's blocked. I have a lot of respect for TOO and Kevin MacDonald. Their articles, especially those on Jews are outstanding. That said, they are very weak on history, particularly the so called holocaust. Professor MacDonald may be afraid of the repercussions if he took the position there was no holocaust or it might be because he's not German, so he doesn't care too much. Either way, he deletes comments saying the holocaust didn't happen and other revisionist comments too. That is why I stopped commenting on TOO articles about 2 years ago. He deleted one too many of my comments, so I just read the articles now. It's his website so of course he has a right to run it as he sees fit.
I posted Benjamin Freedman's speech on how the Jews offered to bring the USA into WW I on Britain's side in return for Palestine. Freedman knew the main players personally, he attended the Versailles conference himself and he was even Jewish (by blood no less) and his conscience caused him to convert to Christianity. TOO deleted the comment. I posted an amazing video of 200,000 Czechs pledging loyalty to Germany in 1942 as evidence that we have been lied to and not all Czechs hated Germans. The comment was deleted. I think I probably also related my personal experience of meeting a Czech woman with a German grandparent and perhaps the German guy I met who was with his family in the Czech Protectorate during the war. Relations with the Czechs were fine until the war ended. Then things changed fast. I also relayed commentary and film from David Irving's website. At Reinhard Heyrich's funeral, many admiring Czechs attended. Himmler's son was only a boy but recalled the many Czechs there. Another commenter objected, there was some kind of discussion and it was all deleted. I guess even if you're shown actual film footage of something, that still can't overcome 70 years of lies. I too am amazed by seeing 200,000 Czechs in 1942 Prague pledging loyalty to Germany, but not so much any more since we now know the allies lied about virtually everything.
The Jews said millions of people died at Auschwitz. We were told Auschwitz was the mother ship of the holocaust. For over forty years we were told that was where most of the killing was done. Now, they've reduced the estimate by 3 million to 1 million deaths, still without a shred of proof. Then the Jewish head of Auschwitz admitted to David Cole in the early 1990's that they had been lying for 40 years - the gas chambers were not original. They were built after the war. (Re)built he claims. But they had told visitors for at least 40 years that what they were looking at were original. They lied. Then Robert Faurisson exposed the lie about the 2.5 million Jews Rudolf Hoss supposedly confessed to murdering. He exposed an Englishman's book in which Hoss's Jewish torturer admitted they wrote up Hoss's phony confession (in English) and beat Hoss for days before he signed it. The Englishman that wrote the book enjoyed this immesnsely. But Faurisson explains that these two idiots didn't seem to realize they were exposing the 2.5 million "confession" as worthless. That explains how even the holocaust promoters now say that no more than 1 million died at Auschwitz. On top of this, we know that not one single person was ever given an autopsy and shown to have died of gassing. And we have numerous engineers and professors (PHD's) who explain that scientifically, the claims about the holocaust are impossible (Professor Fritz Berg, Professor Arthur Butz, PHD candidate and Max Planck Institute employee Germar Rudolf, engineer Fred Leuchter). Revisionists have science on their side. The other side has no people like this, just eyewitnesses accounts of which so many have been exposed as lies. We now know the Jews lied about soap and lampshades.
I haven't seen Michael Hoffman's objections, but we know all these things have been exposed as lies. This was supposed to be the holocaust. If they're now saying, "no, sorry we lied to you for forty years. It was actually done with bullets". First, you'll have to prove that. Second, that is not the "holocaust" - your lies about soap and lampshades was the holocaust. David Irving (whom I admire immensely) says it didn't happen at Auschwitz, but rather the Rheinhard Camps. I'm not unterested in new theories. The Jews and their allies have been thoroughly exposed as liars. Proof means, digging up ground and showing us corpses, or their remains. They haven't done this and refuse to do this, because they know there are no masses of bodies with the numbers they have claimed.
Peter
Professor MacDonald may be afraid of the repercussions if he took the position there was no holocaust or it might be because he's not German, so he doesn't care too much. Either way, he deletes comments saying the holocaust didn't happen and other revisionist comments too. That is why I stopped commenting on TOO articles about 2 years ago. He deleted one too many of my comments, so I just read the articles now. It's his wesbsite so of course he has a right to run it as he sees fit.
Kevin MacDonald is half German and half Scottish. But he seems to be most comfortabe with Anglo thinking and British colleagues. His take on WW2 is from the British-American perspective and he's comfortable with that. Socially comfortable, for sure.
As with you, most of my comments at TOO do not go through -- usually because my brand of criticism is not appreciated there. I started the above article as a comment to his, but doubted it would make it and decided to write something here where I can say just what I want.
I know you to be polite and diplomatic so I'm glad you told us about how your comments have been deleted. It helps in understanding how strongly MacDonald feels the need to distance himself from "Hitler." I think he chooses, as Hadding said, to remain ignorant about the Holocaust and Hitler on purpose. He doesn't want to change his mind.
In a comment he just wrote yesterday at the current article on TOO, by Andrew Joyce, he replied to a JP who said this: "I just saw a tweet from Professor MacDonald cheering on those who trash “neo-Nazis,” the “ignorant” Redneck and Chav 88 crowd" with this:
I retweeted Greg Johnson’s article supporting RAMZPAUL because I agree that promoting Hitler is not the way forward with the vast majority of WHites. It’s a question of tactics. I want to win.
Greg Johnson's article is here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/04/why-ramzpaul-is-right/
P.S. Fritz Berg is an engineer, but does not have the title Professor.
"a question of tactics"
Talking about Adolf Hitler is often not the best way to begin a presentation, if the idea is to appeal to reason, but that kind of tactical consideration is very different from fleeing in terror from the whole subject.
Any nationalist who fears being compared or linked to Adolf Hitler has not yet freed his mind from Jewish influence.
"It's his website so of
"It's his website so of course he has a right to run it as he sees fit."
That is MacDonald's own last-ditch argument after he's been shown that his editoral positions lack reason and consistency.
I do not consider it a valid position, for the simple reason that MacDonald solicits and receives donations and also is an intermediary between donors and writers. That makes his editorial decisions more than just his personal affair.
Who Jew?
would the real Jew of Hebrew-Semitic blood line please stand up. What no takers? Why? DNA proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not one drop of Semite blood in any who call themselves Jews. They are converted Khazars not from palestine but are from Turkish Momogol blood lines. They practice Babylon Talmudism and not the Torah. So you see, there is no anti-Semitic horror practiced by the Nationalist Socialist of Germany! If you are anti-semitic then you are one who hates the Arab world. They came from Canaan and not Khazaria. Look it up, learn the truth for yourself. In the meantime Germany get up off your knees and start by demanding that your people are not persecuted for seeking the holocaust truth. Demand that all things are to be freely questioned. What is the TRUTH?
Immediately upon Hitler being
Immediately upon Hitler being elected Chancellor, Jews went on the attack with wild propaganda stories and holding massive anti-German rallies in New York with leading American politicians in attendance. Shorty after this, Jews began a worldwide boycott of German goods which also received attention in the international media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myh-dqvUgYA
This rally was held 60 days after Hitler was elected and they claim (inferring massive) assaults were carried out on the Jewish population. That is simply not true. Germany had an estimnated 500,000 to 600,000 Jews in 1933. The biggest act of violence against Jews before the war began occurred on "Kristallnacht" in 1938, which occurred after a Jew named Herschel Grynszpan murdered a young German diplomat named Ernst vom Rath in France and an estimated 98 Jews were killed. Two years earlier a different Jew murdered the National Socialist Wilhelm Gustloff. Almost no Jews were killed in Germany prior to the war and they walked around freely until, in 1941, when those that didn't leave Germany were arrested and shipped east, incarcerated in concentration camps as "enemies of the state". Between 1933 and 1939 several hundred thousand Jews left Germany for other countries. Almost no Jews were attacked or killed before the war started.
How touching to hear those lying American igoramuses such as New York governor Al Smith expressing concern for Jews. But apparently he had no problem with Jews murdering millions of Ukrainians at the exact same time he's making false accusations against Germany. In the early 1930's millions of Ukrainians were deliberately killed in the Holodomor. Here, Vladimir Putin explains the Jews completely dominated the governmemt and were the murderers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSAB5OPkwQ
It's remarkable how this has been hidden from discussion for 100 years.
In 1936 the Jewish Board of Deputies made a huge cash donation to Winston Churchill with the understanding he would begin attacking Germany, first in the media and later as Prime Minister. Other wealthy Jews followed up immediately with large cash bribes to Churchill. The Jews "bought" Churchill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CItmmadubBU
I am not aware if Germany had any knowledge of this, but Hitler warned the Jews in a speech in the late 30's or early 40's that they had better stop pushing the world towards war, because they would suffer too. It was a warning. One I find completely understandable.
In 1938 or thereabout Chaim Weizmann, the leader of Zionism and later the first president of Israel made a remark the historians Ernst Nolte and David Irving say was a significant factor in Germany’s harsher policy towards Jews once the war started. Weizmann said Jews worldwide were united in their desire to fight and defeat Germany. The remark received international media coverage, including in Great Britain’s leading newspapers. In 1941, a few short years later most of Germany’s Jews were sent to concentration camps in the east. Until then Jews were free to go about their lives with few restrictions.
In 1940 the American Jew Theodore Kaufman published his book “Germany Must Perish” to praise from some of the USA’s leading publications in which he called for the sterilization of the German people, laying out a detailed plan on how to accomplish this.
In early 1938 the Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9) 32
On January 12, 1939 Ambassador Potocki reported back to Warsaw:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …
All these things were going on while Germany was repeatedly saying it desired no war with Great Britain, France or any other western European country.
This international onslaught against Germany illustrates very well, I think, Jews culpability for WW II.
During the war Soviet propagandist and Jew, Ilya Ehrenburg, wrote newspaper articles and dropped leaflets on advancing Soviet soldiers urging them to kill every last German and rape German women. Two million German women were gang raped at the end of the war. Non-German, east European women were also raped. The Jews honor Ilya Ehrenburg, where he is buried, in Israel.
I am not sure what "Holocaust" Michael Hoffman or anyone else says Germany carried out. The Jews paid Churchill to start WW II and murder millions of Germans. They incited war against Germany in every country in which they resided. The Jews were despised in many eastern European countries already for the massacres they carried out against Europeans, then as partisans they killed German soldiers.
Let us suppose that Germany did gun down hundreds of thouysands or even one million Jews. Germany lost 12 million, perhaps 15 million people or more because Jews paid Winston Churchill to murder Germans and because they pushed all the allied countries into a war with Germany with hate propaganda. Am I being told Germany can't rertaliate when Jews are murdering millions of Germans?
I would also like anyone to show me a statement by a German (any German) in which they called for the murder, rape or wiping out a race such as Theodore Kaufman and Ilya Ehrenburg urged.
Here's the speech, Peter
I am not aware if Germany had any knowledge of this, but Hitler warned the Jews in a speech in the late 30's or early 40's that they had better stop pushing the world towards war, because they would suffer too. It was a warning. One I find completely understandable.
This is what Michael Hoffman quoted in his "Critique of the Movie" that he sent to 13 revisionists. The first quote was:
Adolf Hitler: "From the rostrum of the Reichstag, I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience 2 million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that, all the same, we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia!...It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing." (Hitler, A., Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941-1944, Enigma, 1953/2000: 87).
The second one was questionable in itself:
Joseph Goebbels, Diary: Dec 13, 1941 (II.2.498-499:) "As concerns the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep (reinen Tisch—lit. ‘clean table’). He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a World War they would experience their own destruction (Vernichtung). This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is here, and the destruction of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.”
David Irving embarrassed the
David Irving embarrassed the establishment historian liars and almost everyone else when, after decades of the world being told Hitler "ordered the holocaust" he said he'd been in all the archives and there was no such order, then offered a reward to anyone that could produce one. That was 30 or 40 years ago. There was no such order so no one has ever collected the reward.
Hitler's words are not a threat of extermination. If he was talking about killing them, he wouldn't be shipping them further east to "marshy parts of Russia". He would have them killed wherever they are. Those are not words demonstrating any authorization to kill Jews and that is why there has never been a written order found authorizing such. On the contray, Hitler actually actually intervened on their behalf. This is on David Irving's website where he has the transcripts of the Lipstadt trial.
They always like to talk about the Germans, but the mass murderers that killed million(s) of German civillians in their cities nobody has a problem with. They don't have a problem with Churchill authorizing germ warfare either. The question on my mind is, would the destruction of the Jews have been justifiable as in the words attributed to Goebbels. They paid Churchill to attack and kill Germans, they lobbied other governments and spread hate propaganda to push England, France and the US to attack Germany, they did all the things I listed in a comment above and even a Polish ambassador said the Jews are driving the world to a war against Germany. Is that a justification to kill Jews? Jewish leaders paid Churchill to kill Germans. Why so much concern over what the Germans did. I think a good case could be made it would have been justifiable to kill all the Jews because of what the Jews planned and carried out against Germans.
KMac and the holocaust
Shame to see this all coming from MacDonald, who should know better.Speaking of, the 750+ comment thread on Greggie's TOO article Dealing With the Holocaust has been scrubbed. Content that'd be immensely valueable to newcomers- gone. Why? What's there to hide? Did KMac act entirely on his own volition there, or did Greggie run crying to him because he was getting hilariously trounced by commentors? I think that'd be a good point of inquiry for all of us to follow up on until one of them makes a public statement on that subject. Asked KMac myself a couple times, got no response.
It's all KMac
Very good question, Max, and I can answer it. Only a little attention paid to MacDonald's statements concerning Hitler, 'Nazis' and the unimportance of knowing whether the "Holocaust" is true or not, brings one to the realization that he doesn't want any of that touching his website (webzine) or his personal reputation. That isn't coming from Greg Johnson or anybody else.
He published Johnson's article "Dealing with the Holocaust" because he agreed with Johnson's argument. The insult to all the people who spent time writing those comments that he deleted was less important to him than his own discomfort about having them there. There's no doubt it was entirely his own act. As you yourself see, when you ask MacDonald a question about it, he won't answer. That's because he doesn't want to have to defend his position.
With all of these people, including Michael Hoffman, Jews can be rehabilitated but 'Nazis' cannot.
All TOO article comments go away after a time
MacDonald didn't specifically delete the comments in that Greg Johnson article. ALL comments on all articles are inaccessible after a time on TOO. I don't know the exact period of time but know this to be the case - I think it is about 2 years time. You can check this yourself by looking at any given older article at TOO.
...
"Asked KMac myself a couple times, got no response. "
Been there, done that.
The critiscm of Dr McDonald
The critiscm of Dr McDonald is completely unfounded.
Dr McDonald expertise is in the history, predominantly America, of Jewish political activism in enabiling anti-European social change as well as phycological analyst of Jewish group behaviour. His expertise is recognised both by his and his enemies.
If he started talking about holocaust revisionism it would be counter productive as:
1) He probably only has a basic/intermediate understanding of it so would be easy pickings to proponents of the holocaust
2) He unlikely has any intellectual interest in finding out more about it
An observation/critique of dedicated revionists is that some can fail to recognise that their expertise and depth of knowledge in showing the falsities of the Jewish holocaust narrative is as a result of years, often decades of research which would go into 1000's of hours.
Leave it to the people who specialise in it to be the focus of the attention.
Ryan, you did not bother to
Ryan, you did not bother to support your thesis-statement that the criticism of MacDonald is "completely unfounded." You argue as if someone were contending that MacDonald had no expertise about Jews. Nobody here says that.
Your statements (1) that MacDonald probably doesn't know much about Holocaust Revisionism, and (2) doesn't want to learn, are exactly what we've been saying.
Your claim, that the amount of time required to become functionally conversant in the Revisionist arguments would be prohibitive, is absurd. Did Six Million Really Die? is a survey of the subject that underwent microscopic criticism during the 1985-1992 False News trials. The few errors that it originally contained have been removed in post-1992 editions. It is solid information that takes an afternoon to read. Anybody who refuses to read DSMRD is not refusing because of lack of time. He is refusing because he prefers not to learn. Perhaps he has the conceit of believing that he already knows all that he needs to know.
At the same time, it is clear from material posted on TOO that MacDonald understands that the Holocaust is a very important matter. He has published material that complains about Jewish use of the Holocaust. Since the Holocaust is admitted to be an important matter, a reasonable person would infer that debunking it is worth some effort, if it can be debunked.
MacDonald however has declared that Holocaust Revisionism is a hopeless cause. How does he arrive at that conclusion while admitting that he knows very little about it and while refusing to learn more?
I think that a partial explanation most likely consists in his acquaintance with David Irving and Mark Weber, who are supposed to be great "Holocaust Deniers," but have in fact retreated from the cause and now even declare (with the effeminate Weber imitating the brazen Irving) that Jews were gassed.
It might be possible to straighten MacDonald out on these matters if his mind were a little bit open, if he would just say why he takes the position that he takes and would listen to facts and logic about why that is an incorrect position, but his mind seems to be entirely closed.
Because of some research that I had been doing, last December I was trying to get clarification from MacDonald about whether TOO would carry an essay that includes the subordinate point that rocket-engineer Arthur Rudolph did not abuse prisoners in Dora labor-camp, where the V-2 was built. (Note that this is not even about the Holocaust as such, since Dora is not an alleged extermination-camp and the workers there were mostly not even Jews.) MacDonald's answer was NO, that he would not publish an essay that mentions that Arthur Rudolph did not abuse prisoners in Dora. You may not be aware of this, but Pat Buchanan, in his syndicated newspaper-column, defended Arthur Rudolph against that very accusation -- more than once. Yet the same point could not be published on The Occidental Observer.
The reason why I knew that I had to ask for this clarification was that I had posted a comment on TOO indicating that nobody had been gassed at Dachau, and this completely uncontroversial statement of fact was rejected, because the editor of the blog happens to be an irrational ignoramus on this subject.
I don't see how you can suggest that this is anything other than absurd, when a so-called White Nationalist or "Alternative Right" blog is so rigid about avoiding "Holocaust Denial" that a nationally syndicated columnist surpasses that blog in boldness, and when a fact unanimously acknowledged even by Yad Vashem and the USHMM cannot be posted because it contradicts old war-propaganda that many poorly informed people still believe. What kind of alternative is that?
Michael A. Hoffman, philo-semite
"Inspired by God, the admirable Semitic people wrote the Old Testament, the second most remarkable of all books. I love them dearly."–Michael A. Hoffmanhttps://twitter.com/HoffmanMichaelA/status/725554108233449472
What I suspect Kevin Macdonald doesnt want to be brought up
Kevin MacDonald is biased in favor of the British.(I have encountered his censoring of comments exposing the British). The truth about how nazism came about is very damaging for Britain. The six million is presumably a sort of bribe to silence a truthful debate. The jews have had advantages from its spreading but it isnt mainly the jews who benefit from hiding the truth. Thousands being gassed with diesel exhaust in other camps than Auschwitz, is still an exceptional type of crime in most peoples eyes. Done against civilians who expected to be offered employment. Quantitatively it obviously trails what happened to Russians and Germans. But since most people never hear much about the angloamerican power behind both nazism and bolshevism they are often seen mainly as perps.
And 19th century history is a white area for most of those who debate these things. The Israel project did not begin with Balfour (actually Sir Robert Cecil is said to have been the main proponent) but rather with Lord Palmerston over 80 years earlier. Palmerston and his stooges turned the world into a large number of conflict zones in order to weaken Britains competitors everywhere. Palmerston's Young Europe had a similarity with the Colour revolutions of more recent times. Young Europe was interdivided into national branches such as Young Italy, Young Germany, Young America, Young Argentina etc. Of particlar interest is how they approached Germany. Richard Wagner enlisted in Young Germany but presumably had no idea what it was really all about. Edward Bulwer Lytton, a collaborator of Palmerston, wrote Rienze the last tribune, which was an important inspiration for Wagners successful opera. Rienzi a 14th century historical figure symbolized the struggle of a germanic hero against the corrupt nobility identified with the jews. In both this opera and the Niebelungen Ring the germanic heros die. And the end is apocalyptical in the latter. The dwarfs are to be interpreted as the jews and this theme apparently reappears in the recent filmatisation of Tolkiens novels.
Wagner being duped already at a young age dragged into the upheavals organized by the British was very much involved in the revolutionary passages in the 1840s although he later denied it and presented it as something only involving critique concerning art. Allkunstwerke as it were.
But it is important that the British influenced him significantly towards a destructive orientation. That destruction would need to take place to cleanse the scene for the rise of a new healthy society. Thomas Carlyle was his inspiration in that respect. Carlyle preached destruction and predicted centuries of it. Wagners political analysis was based on Carlyles thinking. Carlyle erroneously described the French Revolution as a reaction against a rotten society. Instead that had been a foreign-imposed and sponsored plot against France. But this lie fitted Carlyle's propagandistic agenda. In 1871 Wagner's early inspirer Bulwer Lytton published what became the cultic background for nazism and H S Chamberlain(conveniently marrying into the Wagner-family) perfected this British project so Goebbels later praised him calling him the pathbreaker and visionary of nazism.
Much later the young Hitler became an opera-buff and watched Wagner's operas a huge number of times. Totally absorbed and inspired identifying with Rienzi and Siegfrid.
Hitler during his time as Fuhrer often referred to the context of Wagner's fiction and both Wagner and Hitler seemed to have had one foot in that kind of dream-world rather than being realists.
In addition Hitler was also familiar with and influenced by Wagner's political works.
I note en passant, the significant influence Hitler got from the Round Tables Halford Mackinder.
There is a lot more of related aspects to add concerning Britains assault against the world, but let this be enough for now.