"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.

30 June 2010

German Intelligence says: No Connection between al-Qaeda and the 9-11 Attacks

From the ARD (German public broadcasting) documentary,Über Kalte Krieger und Terroristenjäger (On Cold-Warriors and Terrorist-Hunters):

Der Bundesnachrichtendienst hat immer gesagt, daß wir keine Verbindung zwischen al-Kaida Terrorismus und dem 11. September und dem irakischen Régime gesehen haben....
August Hanning, BND-Präsident 1998-2005

The Federal Intelligence Service has always said that we have seen no connection between al-Qaeda terrorism and the 9-11 attacks and the Iraqi régime....
August Hanning, director of German Intelligence 1998-2005

The emphasis that Hanning puts on the word und, both times when he says it, means that he sees no connection between any one of these things and the other two.

Continuing, Hanning says that U.S. allegations of continuing Iraqi WMD programs were known at the time to be unfounded:

Und wir haben auch immer deutlich gesagt, daß wir nicht beobachtet haben eine Nuklearrüstung oder ein wiederauflebendes nukleares Rüstungsprogramm des Irak. Das haben wir damals auch öffentlich gemacht. Das waren zum Beispiel zwei entscheidende Elemente, die die amerikanische Administration veranlaßt haben, diesen militärischen Konflikt auch zu begründen.

And we have always clearly stated that we did not observe nuclear weaponry or a revived Iraqi nuclear-weapons program. We also made that public at the time. Those were, for example, two decisive elements that prompted the American administration to justify this military conflict.

Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck.

24 June 2010

The Fraudulent Basis of the Afghan War

In the third hour of Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares, British journalist Jason Burke explains that Osama bin Ladin had no organization, and that the fiction of a worldwide terrorist organization called al-Qaeda was invented, with the assistance of a paid witness named Jamal al-Fadl, to enable the U.S. Government to charge Osama bin Ladin under the RICO statute. Osama bin Ladin was instantly blamed for the 9-11 attacks because the myth of his being the terrorist mastermind had already been created.

Jim Giles has been in frequent contact with an embedded war-reporter and former special-forces man named Michael Yon. Yon says that the war is going badly and he tells Giles that if it becomes apparent to him that the Afghan war is unwinnable, he will begin public opposition to it.

This represents the pre-eminence of pragmatism over idealism, a typical feature of the US mentality. It is a kind of opportunism. Yon is concerned about whether the US forces are winning or losing, and whether they can win, but he has taken no great care about whether the cause was right in the first place.

The USA certainly did not know immediately after the 9-11 attacks that Osama bin Ladin was responsible. He was blamed because he had become a favorite scapegoat in the several years since the 1998 embassy bombings, but the evidence blaming OBL for that is also very shaky.

The USA also did not have the slightest evidence that the Taliban had any involvement in the 9-11 attacks. The Taliban had told Osama bin Ladin after the embassy bombings to keep a distance from all such activities because they didn't want any trouble.

There was a report in the New York Times that OBL wasn't even in Afghanistan on September 11 but was undergoing dialysis in Pakistan.*

The German intelligence agency, BND, says that the 9-11 attacks were not done by al-Qaeda. There are scholars who say that al-Qaeda doesn't even exist.

From the perspective of the average American we invaded Afghanistan just because we wanted to retaliate against somebody, and those backward towelheads, stoning to death homosexuals and demolishing Buddhist idols and keeping their women at home, seemed to need an ass-whuppin'. None of that was any of our business, but we could feel justified in killing them anyway because we had been told that they were monsters.

The anti-Taliban propaganda also included the outrageously false imputation that removing the Taliban would somehow adversely affect opium production. This lie was propagated from the mouth of President George W. Bush and from the BBC World Service, but it was the opposite of the truth, since the Taliban had successfully eradicated poppy-growing as un-Islamic in the 90% of Afghanistan that they controlled, while poppy-cultivation continued in the 10% of the country controlled by the USA's newly adopted proxy, the Northern Alliance.

Allegedly the USA invaded Afghanistan in order to find the accused master conspirator Osama bin Ladin, but ten years later he has not been found and the US forces are still there, engaged in an attempt at "nation-building" that seems doomed to failure because most of the upright and honorable people of Afghanistan are on the other side.

Who knows what the real reason for invading Afghanistan was? I think the fact that they were setting an example of incorruptibility and insusceptibility to US-Jewish pressure had a lot to do with it.

The Taliban have paid a high price for not being corrupt, but corruption has an ultimate price that is higher still.
* On 2 May 2011 when, according to reports, Osama bin Laden finally was found, he was not in Afghanistan but in Abbottabad, Pakistan, near the Indian border. He was captured unarmed, but instead of being put on trial as a conspirator in the 1998 African embassy bombings (where his defense would most likely have been, as the Manchester Guardian's reporter Jason Burke has explained, that there was no organization called al-Qaeda) he was extra-judicially killed, and his remains were dumped in the ocean.

20 June 2010

How to Minimize Infighting

One of the bad things that we take along with the good possibilities of internet, is that anybody can set himself up as an ostensible expert on some matter or a spokesman for some cause, and if he is really reckless and throws around shocking accusations, he will probably attract more attention faster than if he is cautious.

I don't think that it is a good practice in general to respond to false accusations by impugning the motives of the one making the accusations, unless you have solid evidence. You are entitled to say that something being said is ridiculous. People then can assess for themselves whether this is true or not. But to say that somebody with an idiotic opinion or a counterproductive approach is therefore a Jew, or an agent of the Jews -- except in the extraordinary circumstance that you actually can prove it -- is just a blind stab in the dark, and making that counter-accusation will reduce your credibility with thinking people.

There are several possibilities to consider, other than the Jewish agent interpretation: 1, Some people are more focused on being shocking or contrarian than on being correct; 2, there is a tendency for some of the small people to belittle their betters; 3, some people just aren't very good at analyzing information and coming to a reasonable conclusion.

An example of how not to deal with personal attacks: in 2003 Bill White and Alex Linder were attacking Kevin Strom's character in various ways; Strom responded by insinuating from the bully pulpit of an American Dissident Voices program that these people attacking him had been put up to it by the FBI. Strom had no real evidence to support this insinuation, and the main thing that it accomplished was to show that the attacks were driving him crazy, which really encouraged them to do more. Strom would have done better to ignore the attacks entirely.*

By contrast, Dr. William Pierce's policy was never to give a public response to personal attacks, even though Willis Carto's Spotlight tabloid attacked him repeatedly in the 1990s, for example insinuating that he was a "CIA asset." Since Dr. Pierce ignored the attacks, there was not much to be said about them, and consequently very little sustained interest.

If you do respond, stick to the facts. When a dispute is kept focused on facts instead of personality, there is some likelihood that facts will get sorted out. As long as it's a matter of sorting out facts, we are all on the same side, trying to get at the truth. If the accuser has made an honest mistake, you might win him over. When it becomes an exchange of accusations, the search for truth is over.

Even if the other guy is totally committed to unreasonable personal attacks, don't follow his example. If you do, you are giving up the intellectual high ground. You can say that somebody is saying reckless or foolish things, rather than being deliberately malicious, and still keep the dispute, on your side at least, within the realm of demonstrable facts. Motives are hard to determine but recklessness and foolishness can be demonstrated about what somebody says or does. You can win the rational minority over to your side that way.

Responding to somebody who recklessly throws around personal accusations with the same kind of accusation, unless you have good evidence, just validates recklessness and spreads irrationality, which we really don't need.
* I really don't want to dump on Kevin Strom gratuitously; this is just an egregious example known to me. Kevin Strom actually does have some good qualities -- meticulous, knowledgeable, etc. -- but stoic endurance is clearly not one of them, and that deficiency explains his conduct both in the face of personal attacks and when facing criminal charges. He seems to have been the opposite of Dr. Pierce in that regard. I cannot imagine Dr. Pierce pleading guilty as Kevin did to a charge (possession of child pornography) that would stain his reputation forever -- of which, according to Kevin, he was innocent -- so as to get out of prison sooner and reduce short-term emotional distress for his children. It amounts to sacrificing the future for the sake of the present. Dr. Pierce would have said that life is hard and that enduring some emotional distress early in life will make the children better able to cope with life. If Martin Lindstedt could beat such an inflammatory charge, Kevin Strom could have done so too, if he was innocent: it just would have meant staying in prison longer.

Counterpropaganda: a lesson learned from Jacques Ellul

 "Christian anarchist" Jacques Ellul (1912-1994)

The chief flaw that I noticed in Jacques Ellul's Propaganda was that Ellul does not use the word propaganda with a single consistent definition. I have coined the term counter-propaganda to designate one of the activities that Ellul, violating the definition with which he started, lumps in with propaganda. We as dissidents do not have the resources to make propaganda as Ellul defines it, but we certainly have the resources to make counter-propaganda.

My lesson from the book is as follows.

(1) Only a state or a quasi-state possessing mass-media can engage in modern propaganda, which involves the use of mass-media and educational systems to immerse the public in a particular way of looking at the world; therefore it is misleading to refer to a leaflet distribution as propaganda; at best this is counter-propaganda, an attempt to awaken doubts about the propaganda which is pervasive.

(2) Since the first mission of counter-propaganda is to create skepticism toward propaganda, counter-propaganda can be much less expensive than propaganda, but to maximize effectiveness it has to be directed toward people who are capable of skepticism, toward the thinking minority and toward people whose experience tells them that they have been ill-served by the establishment and its propaganda, or people (like farmers and truckers, Robert Mathews' favorite demographic when he was still strictly legal) who spend much of their lives away from social pressures, or whose daily lives provide experiences that contradict equality propaganda as a matter of course (like veterinarians and police). 

The most obvious form of counter-propaganda is media criticism. Historical revisionism is another form of counter-propaganda. Actions such as public marches can also be effective, on a less rational level, insofar as they shatter the illusion of unanimity and set an example of nonconformity.

Ellul mentions rather late in the book that winning people over is not always the immediate goal of (counter) propaganda; often the goal is simply to soften the pre-existing convictions. As blatantly false and unpleasant in application as the doctrine of racial equality is, if we can simply punch holes in the wall of fear about questioning it, we will have made an effective counter-propaganda, because perception and cognition will gradually accomplish the rest. The fact that someone makes an overt expression of racism and forces the system and the public to tolerate it, is already a victory that puts the system into a defensive posture.

Don't measure the effectiveness of counter-propaganda in terms of recruits; rather take note of a more subtle and widespread effect, the increased willingness of the public that has been exposed to your position to regard it as worthy of discussion.

There is reason for hope in Ellul's book: as he describes the power of propaganda he also describes its vulnerability. Propaganda's main vulnerability is that it cannot tolerate contradiction. So get busy and make your voice heard!

18 June 2010

Admiration for Hitler Growing in India

BBC News - Hitler memorabilia 'attracts young Indians'-->
Story from BBC NEWS:

Hitler memorabilia 'attracts young Indians'
By Zubair Ahmed
BBC News, Mumbai

Slowly but steadily, a decade-old business around the dead and universally despised [?] dictator Adolf Hitler is emerging as a small-scale industry in India.
[Do you see a contradiction in introducing a report about how some people in India admire Hitler by asserting that Hitler is "universally despised"? That is a typical example of the over-the-top bias and lack of critical thinking that nearly always accompanies this subject in the Post-War West. Obviously he is not "universally despised" in India!]
Books and memorabilia on the German leader's life have found a steady market in some sections of Indian society where he is idolised and admired, mostly by the young.
The numbers are small but seem to be growing.
Latest reports say Bollywood is now planning to cash in. A film - Dear Friend Hitler - is due to be released by the end of the year, focusing on the dictator's relationship with his mistress Eva Braun.
It's hard to narrow down what makes the dictator popular in India, but some young people say they are attracted by his "discipline and patriotism".
Most of them are, however, quick to add that they do not approve of his racial prejudices and the Holocaust in which millions of Jews were killed. [Hitler would not have approved of it either. It's a big Jewish lie. But these Indians admire him in spite of that!]
But the truth is that books, T-shirts, bags and key-rings with his photo or name on do sell in India. And his autobiography, Mein Kampf, sells the most.
Jaico, the largest publisher and distributor of Mein Kampf in India, has sold more than a 100,000 copies in the last 10 years.
Crossword, an India-wide chain of book stores, has sold more than 25,000 copies since 2000 and marketing head Sivaram Balakrishnan says: "It's been a consistent bestseller for us."
And demand seems to be growing. Jaico's chief editor RH Sharma says: "There has been a steady rise of 10% to 15% [over what period?] in the book's sale."
Until two years ago, a typical Mumbai (Bombay) bookstore sold 40-50 copies of Mein Kampf a year. Now the figure is more like several hundred copies annually. [That's not a 10-15% increase. That's a 10-15x increase over the past two years! What has changed? Is the obvious role of Jewish influence in disastrous U.S. foreign policy and banking troubles part of this?]
The more well-heeled the area, the higher the sales. [This is important: it's the influential classes that admire Hitler the most.] For example, the Crossword outlet in Mumbai's affluent Bandra district sells, on average, three copies a day.
The book has several editions and is available in vernacular Indian languages too. Mannyes Booksellers in the western city of Pune keeps at least four editions. There are at least seven publishers now competing with Jaico.
Global sales figures for Mein Kampf are hard to come by, but the book sells well in other parts of the world too.
In the US, it sold 26,000 copies last year 2009. In 2005 it sold 100,000 copies in Turkey in just a few months. The Arabic imprint is popular in the Palestinian territories.
Mein Kampf is published by Random House in the UK but the company would not give sales figures to the BBC.
'Positive and negative'
Nearly all the booksellers and publishers contacted in India say it is mainly young people who read Mein Kampf. [Another positive sign: young people are the future. The Jews are going to have a hard time influencing a major nation whose leaders have been influenced by Mein Kampf.]
It's not just the autobiography - books on the Nazi leader, T-shirts, bags, bandanas and key-rings are also in demand.
A shop in Pune, called Teens, says it sells nearly 100 T-shirts a month with Hitler's image on them.
Prayag Thakkar, a 19-year-old student in Gujarat state, is one of them: "I have idolised Hitler ever since I have had a sense of history. I admire his leadership qualities and his discipline."
The Holocaust was bad, he says, but that is not his concern. "He mesmerised the whole nation with his leadership and iron discipline. India needs his discipline."
Dimple Kumari, a research associate in Pune, has not read Mein Kampf but she would wear the Hitler T-shirt out of admiration for him. She calls him "a legend" and tries to put her admiration for him in perspective: "The killing of Jews was not good, but everybody has a positive and negative side."
Shilpi Guha says she started reading the book but could not finish it and she wouldn't like to dwell on the dictator's negative side.
In the past, a couple of right-wing Hindu leaders [e.g. Subhas Chandra Bose, who went to Germany during the war] have also expressed their admiration for Hitler.
But young Indians' fascination for him has been explained succinctly by academic Govind Kulkarni: "The youth look for a hero, a patriot, and Hitler was a committed patriot. He is seen as someone who can solve problems. The young people here are faced with a lot of problems."
Mr Kulkarni says he believes the young are gullible and fail to see the sinister side of Hitler.
"Young people have no sense of history. The book is thick and not easy to understand unless you know the history of Germany," he says.
Amit Tripathi, a Mumbai-based scholar, read the book a long time ago but just out of curiosity.
"I didn't find the book inspiring at all. It was interesting to read how he coped with his days of struggle, but his ideology of racial purity smacked of racism."[Note how the BBC picked out a propaganda-saturated liberal opinion to cap off the story. This is the kind of silly, taboo-influenced attitude that they like to see in their academics in the UK.]

From The Times of India:

In Modi's Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero

Harit Mehta, TNN, Sep 30, 2004, 05.11am IST

While a Class VIII student is taught 'negative aspects' of Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, the Class X social studies textbook has chapters on 'Hitler, the Supremo' and 'Internal Achievements of Nazism'.

The Class X book presents a frighteningly uncritical picture of Fascism and Nazism. The strong national pride that both these phenomena generated, the efficiency in the bureaucracy and the administration and other 'achievements' are detailed, but pogroms against Jews and atrocities against trade unionists, migrant labourers, and any section of people who did not fit into Mussolini or Hitler's definition of rightful citizen don't find any mention. "They committed the gruesome and inhuman act of suffocating 60 lakh Jews in gas chambers" is all the book, authored by a panel, mentions of the holocaust.

Narendra Modi, Governor of Gujarat.

Bal Thackeray: prominent Hindu Nationalist and (conditional) admirer of Adolf Hitler

Balasaheb Thackeray is the founder of Shiv Sena, a right-wing populist party based in Mumbai (Bombay) which began in 1966 championing the rights of local workers against the use of immigrant workers from other provinces of India, but is now aligned with the Hindu People's Party.

Starting at 1:48
Interviewer: "You've been quoted as saying there are some misconceptions about your admiring Hitler. What is the actual position?"
Bal Thackeray: "I admire everybody."
Interviewer: (unintelligible)
Bal Thackeray: "Yes,if they have qualities, if they have qualities."
Interviewer: "So now you admire people who have qualities."
Bal Thackeray: "It's for you to find out if they have qualities, and no qualities."
Interviewer: "But seriously, everybody does."
Bal Thackeray: "Uh, Hitler, I don't admire him for one thing: because of that massacre of the Jews.
Interviewer: "Let's take the Holocaust out of it. The rest of what Hitler did?
Bal Thackeray: "The way he used the speech. He, he had that command effect. At that time the people had gone mad, mad. So that type of a thing, you must admire to that extent, that this is the man who actually made their money. And then you will blame Hitler for rights."
Interviewer:"Mm, just the small matter of the Holocaust, but we leave that aside. Now go on."
Bal Thackeray: But something, some miracle, some hypnotic thing was there, That you must say, yes. What hypnotic powers he has! Why people go behind him? That is word-spreading!"
Interviewer: So you also are on record saying you admire Hitler's patriotism. You admire his patriotism, his hold on the masses, but you don't approve of the Holocaust.
Bal Thackeray: "Yes, no Holocaust."

Without the Holocaust, Hitler is totally admirable to Bal Thackeray. Somebody should send him a copy of Did Six Milion Really Die?

13 June 2010

George Lincoln Rockwell vs. the English Pansy

Some people are direct and say what they mean. Others find ways to be odious while remaining formally gentle and polite.

Hear a ten minute clip of George Lincoln Rockwell's 9 May 1965 appearance on Michael Jackson's talkshow on KNX Los Angeles.

There is a clash of worldviews evident in the give-and-take. Although Rockwell identifies himself as White and Christian, his views are clearly influenced by Darwinism. He rejects the term "human being" as an absolute category but rather sees man as part of nature with some types of man being less human than others. Instead of divinely ordained categories, Rockwell sees a natural continuum: "I say there's no sharp line."

The objections that Jackson and some callers raise to Rockwell's racial views are all ultimately rooted in the Bible. One caller asks how Rockwell feels that he is to credit for having been born White: the assumption is that he could have been born some other way, which presumes that soul and body are independent, a kind of ghost-in-the-machine relationship. Jackson's rhetorical exploitation of the category "human being" is also based on an implicit creationism, although arch-liberal Jackson surely is not consciously creationist.

Jackson seems to be sufficiently clever that he probably understands that his rhetoric is specious, for example when he asserts that Karl Marx was not a Jew simply because he did not practice the Jewish religion. Jackson was surely not so ignorant as to be unaware of secular Jews.

Jackson probably also understands very well that the 65% of California voters who supported Proposition 14 (1963), which nullified the Rumford Fair Housing Act, were racially motivated. They did not want to be required to rent and sell property to Blacks. Jackson pretends to accept at face-value the constitutionalist rhetoric used to argue for the Proposition so that he can avoid admitting that many Californians share Rockwell's preference for not associating with Blacks.

Michael Jackson's lack of concern for reality is so complete that he advocates trying to make Blacks equal to Whites even if Blacks are inherently inferior, taking no account of the burden and deprivation to White people that such an effort entails. Only a White man so privileged that he does not have to deal with the consequences of what he advocates, and so self-serving that he lacks any sense of responsibility to less wealthy members of his own race, could take such a position.

Leftist-dominated Wikipedia says that Jackson "was never accused of being rude," but you can hear Rockwell accusing Jackson precisely of being rude when he says, "Maybe I ought to do that; maybe I ought to cut you out more," referring to Jackson's hanging up on a caller.

Jackson retorts, "Try it."

Maybe it's only a coincidence that this happened in September of the same year.


The whole station was in effect cut off when its tower's guywires were cut by a pair of mischief-makers (spotted running from the scene) and the station was forced to operate on a makeshift, long-wire antenna at drastically reduced power for the following year, losing who knows how much advertising revenue, in addition to the costs of erecting a new tower.

While I do not believe that Rockwell would have ordered such a deed, I would not be even slightly surprised if a couple of his adherents, annoyed with Jackson's outrageous (especially for 1965) advocacy of racial equality, undertook it of their own accord. The perpetrators were never caught.

11 June 2010

Glenn Beck promotes Elizabeth Dilling

I have long suspected that there was positive regard for the Third Reich buried under much conservative rhetoric: why should there not be? The Third Reich took the gloves off to accomplish directly what U.S. conservatives are only brave enough to attempt indirectly. Once in a while the hidden respect becomes apparent.

Glenn Beck's promotion of Elizabeth Dilling's The Red Network isn't quite that, however. What it is, is an involuntary spasm of common sense. Those people like Charles Lindbergh and his followers who opposed U.S. involvement in another European war had good sense on their side. Those people like Elizabeth Dilling who perceived a substantial Communist contingent in FDR's Jew-heavy administration were also not wrong. If it wasn't obvious enough when Senator McCarthy started his investigations in 1950, the fact is pretty well confirmed now with the 1995 publication of the National-Security Agency's Venona Intercepts.

The fact that Marxism in the USA has been a mostly Jewish movement is also no shocking revelation. It used to be frankly admitted and discussed, and you can still find mentions of that fact in publications intended primarily for a sympathetic readership, like Vivian Gornick's The Romance of the American Communist.

I would say that it was the duty of every patriotic American to praise Hitler and denounce the Allies, since the Allied path has meant longterm decline for the West.

Source: Media Matters

Glenn Beck's new book club pick: Nazi sympathizer who praised Hitler and denounced the Allies

June 04, 2010 5:21 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

Glenn Beck holding Elizabeth Dilling's The Red Network.

On his radio show today, Glenn Beck heralded and promoted the work of Nazi sympathizer Elizabeth Dilling, who spoke at rallies hosted by the leading American Nazi group and praised Hitler. Today, Dilling is heralded by White Supremacists and White Aryans who revere her "fearless" work against Jewish people.

As Media Matters' Simon Maloy noted, Beck had kind words for Dilling's 1934 anti-communist book, The Red Network, saying: "This is a book -- and I'm a getting a ton of these -- from people who were doing what we're doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously, and they documented it." Maloy noted that Dilling has a long history of rabid anti-Semitism, such as calling President Eisenhower "Ike the Kike" and labeling President Kennedy's New Frontier program the "Jew frontier."

Professor Glen Jeansonne and writer David Luhrssen note in the encyclopedia Women and War that Dilling wasn't only anti-Semitic, but a sympathizer and supporter of the Nazis and Hitler:

When World War II began in 1939, Dilling was part of the national network of anti-Semitics, anti-Communists, and Nazi sympathizers such as Father Charles Coughlin, Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, Reverend Gerald Winrod, and William Dudley Pelley. Material generated by Nazi organizations in Germany to inspire race hated and exploit dissatisfaction in the United States found its way into Dilling's publications. She spoke at rallies hosted by the leading U.S. Nazi organization, the German-American Bund, and had traveled to Germany, pronouncing the country as flourishing under Hitler.

Dilling called for appeasing Germany; she blamed the war on Jews and Communists and accused the Roosevelt administration of being controlled by Jewish Communists. ... After Pearl Harbor, Dilling resisted wartime rationing and denounced the Allies.

So Dilling "spoke at rallies hosted by the leading U.S. Nazi organization, the German-American Bund." Who's the German-American Bund? Let Glenn Beck, Elizabeth Dilling fan, tell you:

BECK: The Bund gathered socially and ran Nazi camps. The camps were advertised as summer retreats where you could escape the city, celebrate German heritage, dance, drink, at places like Camp Nordlund in New Jersey and Camp Siegfried in Long Island. The camps hidden as pro-German/pro- American were attended by adults and families.

On the outside, they looked like any other camp. But the children were indoctrinated in the ideals of Nazism, breeding young Americans to become full-fledged Nazis. They marched, performed drills in Nazi uniforms. And they were taught about their racial superiority, their potential as Aryan youth.

As media scrutiny of the Bund increase, so did anti-Nazi protests, including other Americans who hated the Nazi image and Jewish-American veterans. Instead of quieting down, Bund leader Fritz Kuhn decided to hold the largest rally in their history, Madison Square Garden. These American Nazis showed their true colors, beating a Jewish protester who rushed the stage. Kuhn and other speeches were nothing more than anti-Semitic rants wrapped in the American flag protected by the First Amendment. [Glenn Beck, March 11]

British Professors Christopher Partridge and Ron Geaves wrote that Dilling was a "pro-Nazi anti-Semite" who disseminated Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The ADL describes Protocols as "a classic in paranoid, racist literature. Taken by the gullible as the confidential minutes of a Jewish conclave convened in the last years of the nineteenth century, it has been heralded by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are plotting to take over the world."

Dilling's Nazi sympathies have made her a cult hero among Aryan groups and White Nationalists/Supremacists. For instance, the group Women for Aryan Unity features Dilling in a publication whose purpose is "to honour Aryan Women past and Present." Women for Aryan Unity writes of Dilling:

She visited the Soviet Union in 1931, where she found impoverished people, diseased and ill dressed. She saw genocide. Barely clothed children, begging. Half empty stores. The houses were dingy; roads were cracked and badly kept. She saw state-run orphanages and abortion was rampant. The women of the Soviet Union were suffering badly; the government was raising harassment, grueling work, and their children. What Elizabeth was witnessing was the aftermath of Communism. The Soviet Jews had torn down Russian churches. But she was no pacifist - she believed it was time to fight the infidels.

She decided then to acquire as much knowledge about Communism as she can, and use it as her weapon to fight it. She spoke to large audiences, and did extensive research on Communism and the Jew. She wrote excerpts exposing the Communists in the U.S. The lady was not afraid, and worked endlessly for years to expose the followers of Communism. She spoke on the radio, and met with men such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Hudson, and others who helped support her cause.


Many positive words come to mind as a description for such an admirable woman, but I believe the gentleman she met in the dining room of that small Denver hotel used the best word. The gentleman was University of Illinois Professor, Dr. Revilo Oliver, and it was there, paying no mind to anyone else present, she mouthed her famous words at her friend, "Do I see an anti-Semite?" The word he used to describe Mrs. Dilling? Fearless. My sentiments exactly.

Infamous racist David Duke, meanwhile, excerpts Dilling's work on his website and states that as a 16-year old, he "found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling." Stormfront.org, which describes itself as a "community of White Nationalists," features numerous posts in its forum praising Dilling. "The Official Website of The Knights Party, USA" lists Dilling as one of its "Important Christian Women in History" and praises her for "Knowing the Jewish roots of Communism."

Jeansonne and Luhrssen conclude their summary of Dilling by writing that she "had long been dismissed as a crank before her death in 1966." And now half-a-century after her death, Dilling has found a new audience thanks to Glenn Beck.

UPDATE: In addition to attending Nazi rallies in the United States, Dilling also attended Nazi party meetings in the 1930s.

08 June 2010

End of the "New World Order" Delusion

The term "New World Order" was first bandied about at the end of World War I, in the atmosphere of Wilsonian hopefulness of a world without conflict. The New World Order hope was revived during World War II, but was disappointed through the Cold War. Finally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumph of free-trade capitalism as the ideology of the entire world, President George Bush revived the term "New World Order."

This notion that the lion would lie down with the lamb in eternal heaven-on-earth was always daffy. When the lion stops killing, the result is a world packed with starving lambs.

At bottom we live in a world of conflict among gene-pools, which is expressed through politics. The increasing scarcity of resources will make this conflict more and more overt in international relations, says a German foreign-policy thinktank. (Internationale Politik is published by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, a German counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.)

This international conflict could have been avoided through a more intelligent and forward-looking trade policy by the United States, which has been chiefly responsible for stimulating the growth of China as an industrial power.

No doubt this international conflict will also be used to suppress and distract attention from domestic racial conflicts in the United States.

A New Era of Imperialism

(Own report) - The leading German foreign policy magazine is predicting "a new era of imperialism". The "struggle for energy, raw materials and water" is going to dominate global policy in the 21 century, declared a former prominent foreign policy maker of the ruling Christian Democratic Party (CDU) in the magazine "Internationale Politik". "19th Century nationalism, colonialism and imperialism are returning", he writes in his article. Twenty years after the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, the author is proclaiming the end of a "transition period" in world history and the beginning of a new epoch that will not exclude future "energy wars". The author, who has a profound knowledge of the transatlantic establishment, considers the USA and the People's Republic of China to be the main rivals. The EU must therefore make great efforts, if it does not want to be pushed to the sidelines of global policy. This article is published at a time, when Berlin is using the Greek crisis to demand extensive intervention possibilities into the primary sovereign rights of EU member states. The demand for a more aggressive EU foreign policy is accompanied by dictates on member states to reinforce the EU.

The whole world is faced with "a new era of energy imperialism" [1] one reads in the current edition of the magazine "Internationale Politik". The magazine is published by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) and is considered to be the leading German foreign policy journal. The author of this noteworthy article, Friedbert Pflüger, is a prominent CDU politician, who has been in leading positions of the incumbent governing CDU: From 2002 to 2005 he served as foreign policy speaker of the CDU/CSU parties in the German Bundestag and 2005/2006 he was parliamentary state secretary in the German defense ministry. He is regarded as an authority on US foreign policy and a proponent of close transatlantic cooperation.

Struggle for Limited Resources
Pflüger's analysis is based on research on the global energy demand. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global energy consumption will grow drastically in the near future - 40% by 2030, Pflüger writes. Renewable energy sources could not meet these demands, even under steady growth. Fossil energy sources will have to satisfy about 80 percent of these rising demands. The "predominant conflict in global politics of the 21st Century" will therefore be "the struggle for energy, raw materials and water." This engenders a return of "19th Century nationalism, colonialism and imperialism," says Pflüger and predicts that "after the period of a 'battle of ideologies'" ending in 1990, followed by "two decades of transition in search of a new world order", now a new imperialist era will begin. The "basic conflict" is "one for the limited resources of our planet, fought out with all means at hand." "Inevitably" we are heading toward "energy crises and conflicts" possibly even "energy wars".

USA vs. China
According to Pflüger, the main adversaries in these coming conflicts will be the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. The Chinese requirements on energy and raw materials are growing enormously, making the rivalries for the limited resources with the United States - and even the EU - already clearly discernable. This is the case in Central Asia, where Beijing has been able to achieve a strong position,[2] but also for the African continent. China's "massive engagements in Africa" are among "the most significant recent geopolitical transformations." Even China's activities in the Persian Gulf area and Latin America produced a fundamental shift in power relations. According to Pflüger "China is enhancing its position of power at extremely high speed" and he expects that "if this development continues at the current pace, sooner or later it could lead to serious conflicts."

Military Expenditures
The fact that the transatlantic establishment is also considering military confrontations can be seen with Pflüger's attentiveness for China's military budget. Beijing's military expenditures "have tripled" over the past decade "reaching $63 billion", whereby more up-to-date has replaced older war material and China has made efforts "to modernize its armed forces using information technology and electromagnetic warfare," Pflüger warns. In addition, China has its soldiers engaged in UN missions in six African countries. But even Pflüger has to admit that at the "current status of weaponry sophistication" it would be an exaggeration to warn "of a new military super-power, China". Alongside the fact that the EU member states spend more than three times as much as China for their military, the USA places three times more money at the disposal of its military than even the Europeans. The most disastrous wars currently being waged, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are being fought by western nations, who have their troops stationed on all of the continents.

Impose Interests
Pflüger concludes his article with recommendations for actions the EU can take. Among them "Europe" should clarify its long-term needs for energy supply and other raw materials, as soon as possible. A common energy foreign policy should be developed, which would permit a consolidated global approach by both political policy makers and enterprises. These plans for resources are to be coordinated with NATO. "It does not suffice to establish gender projects in Latin America or Africa (...) or to finance seminars on autonomous municipal administration," Pflüger warns. "The EU must rather learn to define and impose its interests on the stages of the world's theaters." The CDU politician calls for Russia to be incorporated into the European energy planning - an indication that Moscow should be brought over to the side of the West and prevented from entering an alliance with Beijing.[3]

Military Policy Motor
Pflüger's "Internationale Politik" article was published at a time when, Berlin is using the Greek crisis to demand extensive intervention possibilities into the primary sovereign rights of EU member states. Last Tuesday, the German foreign minister reiterated that he will no longer tolerate that "ideas be banned" and raised, among others, the issue of a suspension, if necessary, of EU national parliaments' budgetary sovereignty.[4] Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle insists, at the same time, that the EU must achieve "internal unity" - also in questions of a common military policy. This should be "a motor for Europe's further consolidation." "In the future, we will be faced with challenges that we cannot even fathom today," explained the German foreign minister. The sorts of "challenges", accompanying budgetary and possibly other future dictates within the EU, can be discerned in Friedbert Pflüger's article: global struggles for power over the limited resources, above all against the major rival, China.

[1] All quotations: Friedbert Pflüger: Eine neue Ära des Energieimperialismus, Internationale Politik Mai/Juni 2010
[2] see also The Principle of Interference
[3] see also A Question of Orientation
[4] "Deutschland in Europa - eine Standortbestimmung". Rede von Bundesaußenminister Guido Westerwelle an der Universität Bonn am 27. April 2010. See also Keine Denkverbote!, Europas Motor and The Lisbon Decade