"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.

08 December 2018

France's White Working Class in Revolt: les Gilets Jaunes

The struggle of the French people against "Jewish France" is an old one.

The use of a masked Negro as the poster image for this video from Russia Today is quite ironic, since the narrator emphasizes that the Gilets Jaunes are essentially a movement of France's White working class. 

On the surface, the Yellow Vest movement in France is about a fuel-tax, inadequate wages, and a cut in pensions. This kind of economic complaint is still allowed in France. 

Under the surface, it is a revolt against the destruction of France's White working class by haughty (of course, largely Jewish) globalist plutocrats whose puppet is Emmanuel Macron. The racial importance of the movement is something that most French people are afraid to state openly.

13 November 2018

Cultivation of Courage versus Impulsive Violence

Robert Bowers doesn't seem to have thought about how to influence people without firearms.

Hadding discusses with Matt Heimbach and Christopher Cantwell what Robert Bowers could have done that would have been more useful than hoarding guns and shooting up a synagogue.

Here Zan Overall, the "Wise Old Man," exhibits the steady self-control that Robert Bowers lacked. There is another video wherein he stands outside a synagogue declaring that the Holocaust is a hoax, and is confronted by angry Jews.

10 November 2018

Kristallnacht as a Jewish False-Flag Operation

Warning: this discussion contains some crude language. There are three distinct major points here.
  1. The violence of Kristallnacht has been greatly exaggerated. (The canonical figure for deaths is not in the thousands as one might suppose, but only 91. Heinrich Haertle however says that the number was 35.)
  2. German authorities had strong reasons for not wanting such violence, and in fact took measures to stop it when they found out.
  3. A conspiracy of Zionist Jews instigated the violence so that the British government would not ban Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Points 1 and 2 are indisputable. Point 3 is somewhat speculative, but it answers the question of how violence could erupt throughout Germany all at once, contrary to the interests of the German government, without any organizing factor in view.

Of course, there must have been many German people angry at the Jews, not only for the assassination of their diplomat but for the hardships of the worldwide boycott against Germany organized by the World Jewish Congress in 1936. At the same time, however, riots do not erupt simultaneously in many places without organized instigation.

In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the National-Socialist government made an effort to prevent repetition of such an event. Since Kristallnacht seemed to be an expression of the German people's rage against the Jewish presence and especially Jewish commercial strength in Germany, the government sought to placate that rage and to prevent another such outburst. First, a large fine was imposed on Germany's Jewish population to pay the cost of repairs. The National-Socialist government then bought Jewish-owned businesses so that they could be placed under non-Jewish ownership (aryanized), so that there would no longer be large numbers of Jewish-owned shops to provoke resentment. Under the Rublee Plan, adopted several months after Kristallnacht, every Jew under the age of 45 was expected to emigrate, and Jews who could not afford to emigrate received financial assistance to make it possible.

09 November 2018

Twitter Expands Censorship after Synagogue-Shooting; Gab Still Essentially Free Despite Pressure

Warning: this discussion includes some crude language.

You may recall that Dylann Roof's utterly pointless shooting-spree in a Negro church spurred a holy crusade to abolish everything that would betoken a negative thought or attitude about Blacks, including Confederate symbols. That movement seems to have established Twitter's standards regarding acceptability of content.

Twitter's censors, however, do not honestly state what they are doing. They do not say that they are trying to abolish all negative thoughts and attitudes toward Blacks. Instead they falsely characterize a mere statement of fact or opinion, if it happens to be unflattering to Blacks, as harassing, threatening, or promoting violence.

A mere statement of fact, if it happens to be unflattering to the Negro race, is deemed by Twitter's small-brained censors to be a call for violence.

Previously, this kind of censorship on Twitter seemed to happen only in  regard to generalizations about Blacks, not about Jews. This is why the completely mild-mannered "race-realist" Jared Taylor, who avoids talking about Jews, was banned from Twitter some months ago, while paradoxically people like me who "deny the Holocaust" were allowed.

In the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting, it seems that Twitter has decided that disputing the Holocaust is no longer acceptable, probably based on the same premise, that criticizing a group is the same as advocating violence against that group. This logic comes from Deborah Lipstadt: if you defend the Germans, you are really attacking the Jews, because defending the Germans involves calling some Jews liars. If this attitude is accepted, the net effect is that Germans and White people in general are obliged to accept abuse without responding.

It is certainly true that accusations can lead to violence. The Holocaust itself is an old piece of war-propaganda that is resurrected whenever a new war is to be justified. Unapproved leader X gasses his own people! Unapproved leader X must be destroyed!

Similarly, the completely unfounded inflammatory propaganda that mass-media aired following the Trayvon Martin incident, and also after the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, caused incidents of violence against White people and police. (I go into some detail about that here.) But there was no movement saying that criticisms of White people and police must stop. At least, I have not heard about it, and Twitter is clearly not influenced by any such movement.

I wonder when Twitter will decide that criticizing President Trump is the same as advocating violence against President Trump. I won't hold my breath waiting for that. 

06 November 2018

Did Jews provoke the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting?

There have been suggestions that Robert Bowers' spree-shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, which caused eleven deaths, was in some measure provoked by Jewish behavior. Bowers himself had indicated that he was angry about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society's role in bringing non-White violent criminals into the United States.

The first commentary to this effect that I heard came from Jewish radio talker Michael Savage. As a Jew who often seems frustrated with the behavior of other Jews, Savage complained that leftist Jews were stirring resentment with their own hostility toward White Americans. He seemed hesitant to go into much detail about this, however. Simultaneously, Savage in some ways defended his ethnic group -- as is to be expected -- alleging that Catholic Charities was a bigger factor than the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in promoting demographic change. Although he barely hinted at the size and nature of the problem, it seemed remarkable that Michael Savage as a Jew was willing to assign some blame to Jews for Robert Bowers' action.

Now, a more unambiguous indictment comes from Catholic historian E. Michael Jones, who says that Jews have in various ways set an example of lawlessness -- an example that, Dr. Jones says, Robert Bowers followed. Jewish organizations like the ADL are also causing frustration and blocking peaceful resolution of grievances through their efforts at censorship.

The tightening of censorship is an important point, not only on Internet but in terms of public demonstrations. Several men went to prison for defending themselves and each other against Antifa at Charlottesville. Antifa had undertaken violently to suppress the Unite the Right rally, which was a lawful and permitted event, while police were ordered to stand by and let Antifa try to shut it down. While Alt Righters go to prison for defending themselves, Antifa who committed acts of violence without physical provocation get at most a slap on the wrist. For somebody who really attempts to exercise his constitutional rights in the United States today (and not many people really do that), it becomes obvious that the law is not enforced impartially. If you conspicuously espouse a disfavored opinion or represent a disfavored interest-group like White people, in certain jurisdictions the local government will collaborate with the federal government to shut you down and possibly put you in prison. The FBI is still pursuing Alt Righters who did nothing more than fight off the Antifa onslaught at Charlottesville that police were supposed to prevent! 

I am not a Christian, but I have been urging people to obey the law and be "Christ-like" by patiently enduring the present injustice, because in the long run this is more likely to produce good results -- since it is in our people's nature to rally to the cause of justice -- rather than spontaneously undertaking violent actions that lack broad support, which will facilitate obfuscation about who the important lawbreakers are. 

But it becomes hard to persuade people to obey the law when they have experienced lawlessness government. E. Michael Jones points out some respects in which Jews have been getting away with breaking the law. I just pointed out others. If Jews are getting away with lawlessness, it is partially because they have corrupted the government and made it to some extent lawless too, which is bound to have an effect on the general population's attitude toward the government and the law.

I have suggested that the public demonstrations like Unite The Right, when they weren't violently suppressed, were an important avenue of expression for White men unhappy with the country's direction. What are those men supposed to do now that Jews have used one-sided enforcement of the law, and legal persecution, to suppress such demonstrations? In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Janet Reitman demands that the federal government find more excuses to prosecute White Nationalists, and refers to the prediction of a professional Jewish agitator (head of the "Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism") named Brian Levin:

When we first spoke this August, Levin noted the continued ascendance of the far right, even after many of its members went underground after Charlottesville. “The rocket ship is still twirling,” he said. Levin predicted that the next big wave of activity wouldn’t be around mega-rallies but around what he calls “aggressive maneuvers” by loners or small cells. A series of violent outbursts in a single week in October made his prediction seem prescient.[J. Reitman, NY Times, 3 November 2018]

In other words, influential Jews understood that suppression of perfectly legal mass-demonstrations would lead to illegal alternate activities: sporadic acts of violence that could be prosecuted. Apparently, a synagogue-shooting is just the kind of thing that they wanted. Of course, the crime is also exploited as an impetus for intensified censorship. The answer to E. Michael Jones' question about whether the Jews at the Anti-Defamation League were privately happy about the synagogue-shooting is: most likely, yes.

21 October 2018

After a lifetime of defying Jewish Bigots, Robert Faurisson dead of a Heart-Attack at age 89

The video below, by Vincent Reynouard, shows what was happening in Faurisson's life the day before he died. The computer-pronunciation of Faurisson's name in the video below is not quite right. It is FOE-ris-son.

Professor Robert Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the Sorbonne, and later at the University of Lyon. He was a famous scholar in the 1960s because of his work on French authors like Rimbaud. He was sufficiently famous as a literary scholar, in fact, to be invited to appear on French television.

His book about Rimbaud is called A-t-on lu Rimbaud? -- Has one read Rimbaud? The emphasis on the word lu (read) in the title meant that people had missed the poet's meaning because they had not read him carefully. 

It was not only poetry that people read with insufficient care. Faurisson, when I visited him in 2000, said that he had conducted a class wherein students were asked to read and interpret news-reports. When people read the news, they often do not remember what they have read, and do not notice contradictions in what they have read, and do not derive the full implications. When the news is read carefully, sometimes the meaning turns out to be completely unclear. Not infrequently, the details buried within an article contradict the title or the first paragraph. With this kind of thing, Faurisson started to get into trouble, because now he was teaching skepticism toward mass-propaganda. The Holocaust was part of that.

Faurisson became interested in the Holocaust in 1960 when he learned that the claims of gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald had been abandoned, according to Martin Broszat of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. This was  remarkable news, because there had been some so-called witnesses to these alleged gassings, who, now it must be concluded, had lied. What then was the full extent of the lying?

Faurisson spent years researching the question. He traveled to Auschwitz  where he questioned officials of the museum and acquired documents, and in 1978 went public with his conclusion that there had been no gassings there. Ultimately he concluded that there was no real evidence for gassings of anybody anywhere by Hitler's government. 

Faurisson told me that the period after he published his conclusion about Auschwitz was very hard, because nobody that he knew accepted his finding. The solitude that he experienced, he said, was like having ice on his heart.

In the mean time he at least found intellectual support among likeminded people around the world, traveling to California to attend the first annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979.

Faurisson became the architect of Ernst Zündel's defense in the Canadian False News Trials of 1985, 1988, and 1992, where Zündel was prosecuted for republishing a booklet called Did Six Million Really Die? The defense masterminded by Faurisson, which set out to prove that Zündel had not published "false news" as charged, was earthshaking in its effects. Faurisson was heavily involved in preparing cross-examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, forcing them to make embarrassing admissions. It was Faurisson who proposed that an expert on gas-executions from the United States, the only country where gassing was used as a method of execution, should be procured as an expert witness for the defense. That expert was Fred Leuchter. It was Faurisson who interviewed Leuchter to determine whether he could be of use to the defense. Faurisson was apprehensive because  Leuchter said that he believed in the Holocaust, and with his curly, dark hair Faurisson was concerned that he might be Jewish -- but Zündel decided to bet on Leuchter's professional integrity, and the rest is history.

Faurisson's reward for seeking the truth consisted of physical attacks by Jews (whom the police would not arrest), endless litigation, and recurring imprisonment. He told me that he did not keep his files at his home, "Because the police could come at any time." In recent years, the recurring litigation became much more onerous because he had to care for his ailing wife, which he could not do if he were sent to prison. But he never bent under the pressure.

In fact, he even taunted the government. There was a telephone hotline for reporting incidents of Holocaust Denial, and Faurisson would call in to report himself. Whenever Faurisson was put on trial, the courtroom became a forum for him to present his views. 

If you can momentarily forget the worst consequences that Faurisson endured, you may find something amusing about a little old man who refuses to stop saying precisely those things that people are most afraid to say and most prohibited from saying. Faurisson's example of defiance reduced the fears of other people, and the sign of this reduction of fear is laughter. In his last years Faurisson acquired something like a countercultural following among young people in France; in particular he was befriended by the famous mulatto comedian Dieudonné.

I think that we can say that in the end, through persistence, Faurisson won. Suppose that you have the most powerful group of people in the world trying to beat you down, destroy you, or intimidate you any way they can, to shut you up, and you survive to a ripe old age without ever yielding even slightly, while gradually more and more people believe that you are right. That is winning.

He was irritated with some people who did yield under pressure. My girlfriend and I spent five hours with him on that day in August 2000, and a good bit of that time he spent complaining about Mark Weber and David Irving. Weber, as editor of the Journal of Historical Review, seemed to be constantly trying to soften the impact of Faurisson's articles, which did not please Faurisson at all. He was annoyed with Irving for his lack of rigor, which unfortunately gave some validity to Deborah Lipstadt's accusation that he was a falsifier of history. The faults that Faurisson noticed in these men eventually became much more evident. Within a decade, both had retreated to the point of endorsing the proposition that some Jews had been gassed. A couple of years ago when I wrote my articles criticizing the retreat from Revisionism by Weber and Irving, and also by David Cole, the time that my girlfriend and I had spent with Professor Faurisson on 5 August 2000 was constantly in the back of my mind.

The following is a general introduction to Holocaust Revisionism. You might have some difficulty with the pronunciation here and there, but it is very worth the effort, if you want to have a good basic knowledge of the subject. 

19 September 2018

A Few Words about “The Deep State”

There is a general tendency among conservative Republicans to focus their ire on people who are not the real problem. People who run for office, or who work for the government, even violent Antifa, and others who make a lot of noise, are not the real problem, because they are pawns in a game played by others.

James O'Keefe has begun releasing undercover videos that purport to expose the deep state. In fact, that is not what he is doing. Instead he is exposing holdovers from the Obama Administration who do not agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish. We already knew that those people were there, and they are not the deep state, properly speaking.

The term DEEP STATE does not properly refer to people in the government. Peter Dale Scott imported the term from Turkey, where it referred to a criminal syndicate that effectively controlled the elected government of Turkey. It refers to entities outside of the government that are sufficiently powerful to control the government. In the American context, Peter Dale Scott specifically refers to Wall Street as part of the deep state.

I am inclined to make the meaning of deep state within the American context even more specific, to point out that the deep state has a particular ethnic coloration. One can see, for example, that the largest political donors are overwhelmingly Jewish billionaires (many of them connected to Wall Street). Mass-media in the United States also have been dominated by Jews since broadcasting began. It is clear that enormous extra-governmental power is in the hands of Jews. Peter Dale Scott however does not venture that degree of clarity. In fact deep state seems to be essentially a way to avoid talking explicitly about Jews.

Nonetheless, even as Scott uses the term, it has some usefulness. It means the powers that be, fundamentally outside of the government but penetrating and controlling the government.

It was probably through Peter Dale Scott's appearances on Infowars that the term gained some currency.

When Reagan cultists like Rush Limbaugh got hold of the term, however, they tried to make it fit their preconceived notion about where the source of trouble must always be. Since Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem,” it was more comfortable to assume that the deep state meant people within the government. 

Limbaugh really should know better. The concept represented by the term deep state is not entirely new to him. In November 2014 Limbaugh noticed and admitted that wealthy people outside of the government -- the donor class -- were in fact the real problem, at least in regard to the push for illegal immigrant amnesty. This observation posed a great problem for Limbaugh's ideology, which is disposed to regard billionaires as benevolent job-creators who help the country, rather than as greedy monsters who will destroy the country if not curbed. More recently, Limbaugh has also come to regard mass-media as a malevolent power unto itself.* These observations are entirely corrosive to the classical liberal ideology that Limbaugh has been espousing since the late 1980s, but he still has not embraced the anti-liberal implications. He continues, hypocritically, to spout the old Reaganite cant.

Consequently, when Rush Limbaugh heard deep state, he seems to have fallen into his old ruts and assumed that it meant people entrenched within the government -- which is fundamentally not what it means.

James O’Keefe follows the example of Rush Limbaugh in misapplying the term DEEP STATE to refer only to people in government.

Now I hear that a Jew named Jason Chaffetz has opportunistically written a book called The Deep State, which perpetuates and reinforces the already prevalent error, calling the deep state an army of bureaucrats.

With their incorrect use of the term deep state, O’Keefe and Limbaugh and the Jew Chaffetz are letting the important culprits off the hook. Of course, some of this could be intentional.

The image above represents the allegory of the cave, from Plato's Republic. It represents the fact that most people are unaware of the real powers behind events. They are focused on shadows on the wall, which could represent the public actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are unaware of the puppetmasters behind them that manipulate those shadows. James O'Keefe by invoking the term deep state pretends to be exposing the puppetmasters, when in fact he is still focused on the shadows on the cave's wall, and also keeping others focused there.

Whenever you hear somebody using this term deep state to mean entrenched bureaucrats, you should point out that, according to Peter Dale Scott who introduced the term, this is not what it means; that it refers to the real power, which is outside of the government.
* You know, I still chuckle when I see stories talking about how, ‘The media, following the lead of Democrat Party leaders…’ Give me a break. It’s the other way around. -- Rush Limbaugh, 2 July 2018