Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is “not important”

A 2017 photo of Professor Kevin MacDonald.


By Carolyn Yeager

KEVIN MACDONALD RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN a videocastof “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin's limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

“Yeah, um, I guess I'm not, uh, I've never had any sympathy really, before – I, I haven't seen, I haven't seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have – frankly, I haven't dealt into it very much. My view is that it's not important for what I'm doing and I don't think it's really important – I, I think what's really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it's taught in school, how it's used to defend Israel, and it's used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things – ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly (… slurs some words] and all that is something that I don't think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just … just uh … third rail.”

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I've NEVER had any sympathy

  • NEVER seen anything that convinced me

  • Don't think it's really important

  • Haven't dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)

  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds … “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably” – it's not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It's too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he's dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Why is it so many do then? Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He's saying that what he's doing is important but what they're doing is not important.

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn't happen, how can a “culture” of it exist?. Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn't want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I'm afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn't want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn't have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them. (See here) And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin's case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, ““I've made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he's doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he's afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance” – that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn't.

That's an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his  thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

“Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality – I just don't know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a – you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.”

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn't know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

“But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930's in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It's just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the – the, uh, the result of the second world war is uh has essentially given us the war that we're in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can't be undone.”

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn't explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald's simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler's 'disastrous' war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don't know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

“It's impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don't think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I – That's my best guess.

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You'd have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you'd have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it's getting, you know, they don't and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go – you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can't seem to vote in a government that will actually do something. So until that happens .. um .. they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there. So until that happens, it's just going to fester and there's going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites … But, I'm amazed at the staying power of ... it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now … but then you see you've got the victory of Macron in France, so … and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn't seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel's going to win in Germany, so it doesn't look (chuckles wryly) that anything's really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook

  • No mention of removing Jews

  • No political will even for removing Muslims

  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn't mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor/American Renaissance) – when they get together they “don't talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about [white interests]. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there's no will to do anything about it. They're grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler's List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it – Hitler's a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it's not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique –it's about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor – almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don't use the word parasite … much. … I don't think you can use that word for American Jews.” [see hereand here]

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don't like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with nazism. It's a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don't think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It's just bad PR.”

On foreknowledge of 9/11, Kevin said: “It doesn't resonate. I do believe that Mossad was keeping tabs on the terrorists.” He doesn't see any evidence of planning the whole thing, wiring the buildings ahead of time, or much more Jewish involvement. “I did publish one article on that that I probably regret, I could probably take it off ...”

Last year TOO published a 5-part review by Andrew Joyce of Jew David Cesarini's book on The Holocaust. It was very popular with many comments. I do not know what Joyce might have said that gave Kevin second thoughts, but Hadding Scott informed me last week that those five articles had been scrubbed from the site. And so they have. Scott said he had copied and saved them, so it's possible he may write something about it in the future. But this fact shocked me. It may have been the content of some of the comments that were objectionable, but if that were the case they could have simply been removed individually, or all comments removed. So I think it was just too close to “Holocaust denial” for Kevin.

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise ("on their knees" as it's been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don't know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It's always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn't. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don't. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don't like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn't want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior – no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don't seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


by Mike Rivero via WHAT REALLY HAPPENED More at http://ift.tt/2sAfORk

Comentários