"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

25 December 2017

Jared Taylor's Censored Videos about Eugenics

YouTube has disabled automatic generation of codes for sharing and embedding some of Jared Taylor's videos, but through Aryan ingenuity I was able to construct the code for Part 2 here.

Taylor correctly emphasizes a point that I have been stating for several years, that Hitler's decree of 1 September 1939, authorizing physicians to euthanize the incurably ill, had nothing to do with eugenics, and that neither eugenics nor euthanasia had anything to do with anti-Jewish policies:
"The policy against Jews was not a eugenics policy. Nazis considered Jews an enemy people, not genetically inferior."
That is an important point. Holocaust propaganda has tried to give the impression that there is a slippery slope from eugenic sterilization to euthanasia to gassing Jews, and there is really no connection, even putting aside the fact that no Jews were gassed. 

I did not know one fact that Jared Taylor states, which is that Sweden did more with eugenic sterilization, proportionally, than Germany.Why then was there no Holocaust in Sweden?

22 December 2017

Ann Coulter identifies Focuses of Jewish Power in the USA

Ann Coulter aims well-deserved contempt at Indian opportunist Nikki Haley's shameless subservience to Israeli interests, while ironically identifying mass-media, 

the Congress of the United States, 

and the "donor class" of mostly Jewish billionaires, 

as other entities that do the same, so that a stridently pro-Israel position is the most craven and conformist position that an American political official could possibly take.

The point is, these people are all traitors who put Israel First ahead of America First, and the interests of the people of the United States are not being served.

Of course it is no new revelation that Zionist Jews exert such power. Pat Buchanan as early as 1990 said that Capitol Hill was "Israeli-occupied territory" and rightly blamed the Israel Lobby for the impending war against Iraq. For this candid observation Buchanan was attacked by the ADL and by A.M. Rosenthal of The New York Times, and by other Jews. The increasing normalization of criticizing the privileged status of Jewish interests is what is significant.

18 December 2017

Meritocracy Should Not Include Racial Aliens

Faith Goldy has made a video criticizing a proposal for merit-based immigration to the United States, whereby immigrants of high ability would receive preference regardless of their origin. She says that Canada already has such a system and that it is leading to a Chinese takeover of Canada, which she, as a White person, finds distressing. 

She points to the higher IQ of Chinese, Indian, and Jewish immigrants to the United States as a factor that makes them dominant in elite education. She suggests that even if these foreigners have a higher IQ that makes them more capable, White interests should get some consideration.

I agree with the last part, but this is not just about meritocracy and IQ. The overrepresentation of Chinese, Indians, and Jews in elite education is far out of proportion to merit. It is due to the fact that these groups are focused and organized toward academic dominance in a way that Whites generally are not.

Ashkenazi Jews as a group have a higher IQ than Whites as a group, but not a higher IQ than the cognitive elite of the White race. Ron Unz and Kevin MacDonald wrote a few years ago that the overrepresentation of Jews in the Ivy League was NOT justified by their test-scores. There is active favoritism there, Jews conspiring to bring other Jews into the elite universities at the expense of Whites.

In the case of Chinese and Indians, these people achieve grades and test-scores out of proportion to their ability by being study-machines. Their family-culture demands that they get the highest possible grades, and keeps them in that rut. They excel in rote memorization, but they will get the top grades however they can, cheating if necessary. Ultimately their inferiority to the White cognitive elite becomes evident when they are required to do original problem-solving for which rote memorization could not prepare them.

Why do you think China leads the world in industrial espionage? It is because they have a very limited capacity for original thinking. 

So, the overrepresentation of these non-White populations in elite institutions is not entirely a matter of ability.

Faith Goldy did not articulate why it should be upsetting to see these non-White minorities dominating the elite universities. I shall state a rather obvious, if Politically Incorrect and little discussed, justification for that concern.

There is of course the question of loyalty. We already know that Jews cannot be trusted. They use the positions that they gain in our society for their own ethnic interests. Jews are the reason why the USA was involved in two World Wars and, directly or indirectly, every war since then. They dragged us into the World Wars and Middle-East wars for their ethnic interest.

Chinese similarly can be expected to put the interests of other Chinese, or their own personal interests, first. Mitch McConnell's Chinese wife Elaine Chao is an example of this.

Indians in the United States seem to be simply opportunists, who really neither understand nor care about our interests as White people. Look at the recent performance of Nikki Haley (née Nimrata Randhawa) formerly as Governor of South Carolina during the controversy about the Confederate Flag, and now as ambassador to the United Nations: she seems to be utterly void of common sense and totally submissive to the prevailing propaganda, whatever it happens to be. Another example is Dinesh D'Souza, who has found a niche writing absurdly reckless political propaganda aimed at unsophisticated readers.

None of these foreign groups -- not the Chinese, not the Indians, not the Jews -- is sufficiently trustworthy, nor sufficiently meritorious, that we should welcome their participation in the educated elite that will in effect rule over us. We should already know from experience with the Jews that this is a road to disaster.

Instead we should make better use of the wasted ability in our own people, of which there is an abundance.

12 December 2017

Dinesh D'Souza admits that Republicans supported Eugenic Sterilization

This is a corrected version of the Eugenicist Republican meme.

About a month ago I wrote that I had accused Dinesh D'Souza of relying heavily on half-truths, and  that when Dinesh D'Souza challenged me to cite one of his half-truths, I pointed out that he hides the fact that Republicans were the main proponents of eugenic sterilization.

When I pointed that out, he had no response. There was no response that he could give that would even speciously let him off the hook. So he just moved on and ignored  the problem.

Subsequently I created a meme, a map of the United States that shows that mostly Republican governors signed eugenic sterilization into law, and I have posted it many times on Twitter, along with other memes indicating other deceptions in Dinesh D'Souza's argument.

Dinesh D'Souza generally ignores my posts attacking him, of which there have been many. He has responded to two between 9 November and today. In one instance he responded with a hairsplitting rhetorical question that bypassed the real point, and in another instance he responded to a point that was not what I had said, which of course is called strawmanning. This kind of dishonest rhetoric actually seems to work for him with the kinds of stupid people who find the rest of his rhetoric appealing, if likes and retweets are any indication.

This morning (12 December 2017) I made the same point that I made on 9 November, but this time using the meme that I had created, and it was addressed to somebody recommending D'Souza's book The Big Lie to Bret Baier of Fox News. There was a good chance that Bret Baier would see my post.

That's why, I think, Dinesh D'Souza finally felt obliged to respond to the point that he had ignored one month earlier. This time, amazingly, he admitted that Republicans had supported eugenic sterilization. He still tries to downplay it, but that's not going to  be very convincing when there was already a graphic display in the same thread showing that the overwhelming majority governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were Republicans.

Since Dinesh D'Souza also claims in his response that progressives supported "eugenic murder," I posted proof that he had lied about this, a page from Paul Popenoe's book Applied Eugenics (1918) wherein Popenoe says that the "lethal chamber" and castration are not necessary for eugenics. Dinesh D'Souza has been claiming that Popenoe advocated the use of "lethal chambers" and thereby, D'Souza says, pointed the way for the Holocaust. This lie linking Popenoe to the Holocaust is important, given the subtitle of D'Souza's book: Exposing the nazi roots of the American left.

The last post on that thread (as of this writing) is by a leftist (whose motives for attacking Dinesh D'Souza are probably different from mine). He supplies a video by Rachel Maddow that talks about the Republican involvement in curbing "diverse" immigration, and the eugenic argument that was used to justify this change in policy.

The information given about the history of the Republican involvement in eugenic sterilization and immigration-restriction is, I believe, mostly correct. 

The assertion that eugenic sterilization has anything to do with killing people is, however, false: it's Jewish Holocaust propaganda. You will recall that Dinesh D'Souza made the same assertion, and that I showed the page from Paul Popenoe's book Applied Eugenics where Popenoe said that eugenics required neither killing nor castration.

02 December 2017

Marcel Nadjari's Message in a Bottle: another ridiculous attempt to salvage the Holocaust

A thirteen-page letter written by Marcel Nadjari and buried near Krema III at Birkenau, where he allegedly worked in a Sonderkommando, has now been rendered legible, and is being hailed as a central document of the Holocaust. 

The content of the letter, however, destroys its credibility. The impossible details include:
(1) packing 3000 people into a "gas-chamber" of only 2260 square feet;
(2) flammable human corpses that need no fuel for cremation (because the fat on them burns);
(3) cremated human remains that weigh only 1.41 lbs (when a realistic figure is about 5 lbs);
(4) dumping a thousand tons of crushed bone into the River Vistula without leaving a trace.
And this is now said to be one of “the most central documents of the Holocaust”!

30 November 2017

Another Fake Hitler Quote from a Novel

Last July I exposed a speech ostensibly composed entirely of Hitler quotes as being composed mostly, in fact, of fake Hitler quotes.

The debunking of fake Hitler quotes seems to be a never-ending task, because people are inventing new ones. One of the fake quotes that I debunked was this:
"It's not the truth that matters, but victory."
That fake Hitler quote is from a novel, Mist of Love, Fog of War by Alain J. Zgheib, published only in 2016.  From the same novel, we have this:
"And the victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
The fake quotes from that novel spread very quickly. I have encountered them several times.

According to Snopes, this is also from a novel:

It is from a slightly older novel, Pat Miller's Willfully Ignorant from 2014.

The propagation of a fake quote like this raises some questions. 

One could ask about the thought-processes of the person who decided to take a sentence from a novel and to misrepresent it as a quote from Adolf Hitler. Obviously such a person has no scruples.

More important, however, is what it says about the people who readily embrace such a misrepresentation.

In the first place, it shows that, despite the obsession with Adolf Hitler in popular culture, much of the general public knows practically nothing about him. They never perused Mein Kampf to get a general idea of what Hitler said -- which is rather the opposite of what is attributed to him here. The whole spirit of Mein Kampf is blunt and honest.

Furthermore, it suggests that they are still under the influence of old war-propaganda alleging that Hitler presented in Mein Kampf theories about how to deceive the public. Anyone who investigates what Hitler wrote will find that he warned against the Big Lie as a tactic of the Jews. But the vast majority of people will never check, and the few who have checked either could not or would not obliterate the false belief.

Dinesh D'Souza, in his public presentations about his idiotic book The Big Lie, speaks as if Hitler had advocated the Big Lie. D'Souza indicates in his book that he knows better, but for whatever reason he chooses in his public presentations to conform to the old, false propaganda. The fact that he can do this in presentations at universities without suffering embarrassment is remarkable. Perhaps the people who recognize the deception just don't want to be seen defending Hitler. (Many of Dinesh D'Souza's followers however are simply stupid.)

The belief  that Hitler would have written such statements in a book for publication also shows an utter lack of critical thinking. 

The statement shown here resembles something from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which was alleged to be a secret document that ended up being published only because it was leaked.* There is no similar background story to explain how similar admissions from Hitler could become public. We are supposed to believe that Hitler deliberately wrote down his evil intentions and had them published. People are just not thinking.
* Incidentally, Protocols is clearly not an authentic document either, although, unlike this statement attributed to Hitler, it at least has some resemblance to the truth.

27 November 2017

Conservative Socialism vs. Empty Partisan Rhetoric

Democrats and Republicans each like to accuse the other of being the real nazis or the real fascists. It's a very stupid and cowardly game that they play, trying to avoid a label or an association. It has everything to do with appearances and nothing to do with substance.

What Republicans Say

The whole question is confused by the fact that, in vulgar American usage, the meanings of conservative and right-wing have changed. Nowadays, to be conservative is to be an advocate of what used to be called liberalism. In most of the world, what is called conservatism in the USA -- the demand for free markets and less government -- is still called liberalism.*

According to this postwar pseudo-conservatism, any big, powerful government is ipso facto a leftist government.

A generally neglected implication of this redefinition of conservatism is that the powerful absolute monarchies that existed before the Enlightenment must be considered leftist governments. That is utterly absurd. This redefinition clearly was not well considered.

For Republican rhetoric, an important effect of the redefinition of conservatism is that it is now considered impossible to be right-wing and socialist at the same time. On that basis, Republicans can say that National-Socialism and Fascism are leftist and in no way conservative.

Before World War II, that was not the case.

Most Americans have never heard of Tory Socialism. Tory means Conservative. Tory Socialism means Conservative Socialism. Conservative socialism as an idea started in the UK, where it was originally associated with the Young England movement in the 1840s.

How can socialism be conservative? Conservative socialism means making concessions to the needs of the laboring class in order to recruit that class as defenders of established traditions and institutions.

The idea was implemented in Germany by Otto von Bismarck, who, after essentially banning the Socialist Workers' Party in 1878, created the German welfare-state in 1881. The purpose was to eliminate grievances that the Marxists could use to gain popular support. Bismarck did all this with support from Conservatives.

Both Mussolini and Hitler followed in Bismarck's path, doing what Bismarck had done but more of it. National-Socialism and Fascism can be regarded as left-right syntheses in regard to methods, but the ultimate aim is conservative.

It is only by relying on a very limited frame of reference that today's so-called conservatives can argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are in no way right-wing or conservative. 

What Democrats Say

The Democrats, eager to throw the hot potato back to the Republicans, argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are not socialism. It's a purely semantic argument. They can't deny that Hitler and Mussolini created large-scale social programs. So, they point out that Hitler and Mussolini did not implement "government ownership of the means of production" the way Stalin did. But that is not a universally shared definition of socialism. That's just the definition that they want to use just for this particular argument. There are many socialist and social-democratic parties that do not insist on government-takeover of enterprises, whose claim to being socialists is for some reason not challenged. 

One could argue that the reason why social-democrats in various countries do not nationalize industries is that they are kept in check by opposition. But this was also true for the Fascists in Italy and the National-Socialists in Germany. Yes, Hitler and Mussolini were autocrats, but it does not mean that they could disregard what everybody else thought.

When Mussolini established Fascism in Italy, it was with the consent of King Victor Emmanuel and the rest of the conservative Italian establishment. Under the circumstances, that establishment continued to wield influence and Mussolini could not implement everything in the Fascist agenda. But in the Salò Republic (1943-1945) the Italian Fascists actually did implement nationalization of every enterprise with more than 100 employees. That is rather socialist by anybody's definition. 

The NSDAP in Germany also had to compromise with the conservative establishment, which is why figures on the left wing of the NSDAP became disgruntled and began talking about the need for a second revolution, and consequently had to be suppressed with the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934. 

Conservatism of Means vs. Conservatism of Ends

After the Second World War, the idea of using government for conservative purposes (as, for example, with anti-miscegenation laws, or restrictions on abortion and pornography) came under attack.  

Liberalism thus became the new conservatism. It meant that certain ways of doing things -- the liberal ways -- had to be maintained. Under this pseudo-conservatism,  the Constitution and the free market are not means to an end, but ends in themselves (much like some religious law). Those principles are treated as holy, regardless of whether the country is going to ruin because of them. 

Another way to say it is, presentday American conservatism is a conservatism of means. As long as we keep doing certain things the same old way, the so-called conservatives can claim victory. All the leaders of the Soviet Union between Kruschev and Gorbachev could claim to be conservative in that very same sense, of refusing to adapt. This "conservatism" is in fact rigidity.

Fascism and National-Socialism by contrast represent conservatism of ends. Fascism and National-Socialism looked at their most cherished values, and chose means that they thought would conserve those values. 

For Italian Fascism, the most cherished values were cultural, while for the NSDAP the most cherished value was the racial quality of the German people.  More fundamentally stated, Italians were concerned with continuing to be Italians, and Germans were concerned with continuing to be Germans. The two nations chose means that were in some ways the same, in some ways different, for essentially the same purpose.

So, notwithstanding all the disingenuous blather from presentday American political parties, the bottom line is that National-Socialism and Fascism were simultaneously socialist and, in regard to the survival of their nations, conservative.
* The redefinition of conservatism had not fully taken hold in 1951. Anti-Communist commentator Upton Close was still defending the traditional definition of liberalism: "Liberalism is the system which gives the opportunity for people to earn their own way, and make their own successes or failures, to earn what they get, and get what they earn, and keep what they get. so long as it is not taking from others their opportunity to get and keep. Liberalism is the system whereby people have as little government, as few laws and officials over them as possible, taking as little of their savings and earnings as possible in taxes."(Upton Close, broadcast of 1 April 1951) Today this liberalism would be recognized as the ideology of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.