"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.

27 March 2010

Why would anybody quote Pastor Martin Niemoeller?

Martin Niemoeller
Pastor Martin Niemoeller's postwar statement, "First they came for the ..." is quoted ad nauseam by the kinds of people who watch Oprah. Niemoeller prior to 1945 however was no liberal. He was a national conservative who had been a member of the Freikorps and supported the 1920 Kapp Putsch. He was not diametrically opposed to the National-Socialist agenda.

Niemoeller had criticisms of the Jews. He considered them Christ-killers, and in a 1935 sermon he described the Jews as “a highly gifted people which produces idea after idea for the benefit of the world, but whatever it takes up changes into poison, and all that it ever reaps is contempt and hatred”

Niemoeller, however, evidently believed in the magic power of baptism to change one's disposition. After the mainline Lutheran Church defrocked its clergy of Jewish descent, the conservative non-racist Niemoeller started his own breakaway church that rejected the aryanization of clergy. Niemoeller had various conflicts with authorities after that. Beginning in 1938 he was held in "protective custody," first at Sachsenhausen. When war broke out in 1939 he sought to be released from detention to fight for Germany. In 1941 he was transferred to Dachau, where he was housed in a barracks with other clerical troublemakers and had access to books. He was kept there until U.S. troops arrived in 1945.

Paul Rassinier was a Frenchman who had been a prisoner at Buchenwald and Dora because of resistance activities, but rebelled against making false accusations against the Germans after the war. In his book le Drame des Juifs européens (1964), he views Niemoeller as a man who exaggerated his differences with the Hitler government in order to escape hostile scrutiny after the war:

The most typical case of this kind of guilty conscience seems to me to be that of the German Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

In short, he is a man who could have been at the defendants' bench at Nuremberg under the charge of "Crimes against peace," for having participated in the Nazi "Plot," which the indictment included, from 1920 until 1936. Such a conclusion is inescapable when one reads his own book, Vom U-Boot zur Kanzel, which came out in Germany in 1935, when Hitler had been in power for two years, and which was written on the theme "Damals versank mir eine Welt." It is the harshest of any indictment of Bolshevism that I have yet read. It is also a narrow and chauvinistic profession of faith in nationalism, and it shows the most complete adherence to the general policies of the N.S.D.A.P.

To get pardoned for all that, Pastor Niemoeller, President of the Council of the German Protestant Church, in a speech which he gave on July 3, 1946, and which was published under the title Der Weg ins Freie (F.M. Hellbach, Stuttgart, 1946), testified that 238,756 persons had been exterminated at Dachau, although we know today that in reality there were only about 30,000 deaths there; he confirmed the existence of a gas chamber, and we know today there was not one there*; and since 1945, every time he has opened his mouth to speak, he has preached the unilateral responsibility of Germany, and the collective responsibility of the German people, in the war of 1939-1945. He is today at the head of a pacifist movement, and he defends without exception all of the contentions which are the basis of Soviet Russia's foreign policy. There is no doubt that if he had not conducted himself in the way that he has, he would have been one of the chief objects of the accusations that the Soviets incessantly make against the Germans.

Pastor Niemoeller, in short, has the same attitude as all of those people of the Parisian gentry, or of the world of arts and letters, who led a dolce vita in the company of the highest German personages of occupied Paris, rejoicing in the champagne of Hitler's victories, and who, as soon as the wind turned, gave their allegiance to the Communist Party and became the most severe denouncers of the collaborators, in postwar France, solely with an eye to escaping the defendants' bench.

It was people like that who gave the prosecutors and the judges at Nuremberg their most striking evidence and who continue to enrich the archives of Rehovot (Israel) and of Warsaw with all those documents, as fanciful as they are new, which are discovered from time to time and which are published to the sound of trumpets in order to keep alive in the world those anti-German feelings on which the world policy of Bolshevism and Zionism depend.
________________________________
* The shower room at Dachau is still displayed as a gas-chamber but there is a sign therein stating that it was never used, which of course contradicts the Allied propaganda of 1946.

21 March 2010

"An Awkward Detail for Jazz Fans to Deal With"

"One of the strangest photographs of the war was taken by Schulz-Koehn outside La Cigale, a jazz club in Paris. It shows a gypsy (Django), four Africans and a Jew posed smiling beside a fellow officer. The Germans were there not to arrest these men but to listen to them play." (Brian X. Morton)

Some interesting details in that BBC program but also some very questionable claims made by Jewish author Mike Zwerin. He says, "The Germans didn't like jazz." Saint Louis Blues was a well known tune, even to the Germans. Zwerin's claim that the Germans were made to believe that it was a French folksong is ridiculous.  Zwerin even claims that Hitler's government did not want Germans to have fun: obviously this expert never heard of Kraft durch Freude. Have a look at Unexpected Pop Culture from the Third Reich and you will understand how ridiculously off-base Zwerin is.

The narrator also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Allies bombed France, and therefore he finds it incomprehensible that Django Reinhardt in Paris worried about bombing.
 
Brian X. Morton remarks on how surprising it is that jazz persisted under a "totalitarian regime" that was ideologically opposed to it. This implies the question of whether National-Socialist Germany is rightly called a "totalitarian regime." The government did not control every aspect of life; it certainly was not comparable to the USSR, where the lives of the general population were radically rearranged and forbidden from following traditional patterns. The label "totalitarian" seems to be a residue of the propaganda that tried to portray Hitler's Germany as equally or more oppressive than the Soviet Union, when really there was no comparison.

Swing Time for Hitler
Brian X. Morton

It is of some small comfort that totalitarian regimes are never quite as total as either their leaders or subsequent historians might imagine. As much as the Bolsheviks may have wished to "abolish" religion, faith and observance persisted all through the Soviet sphere and contributed to the disintegration of the Communist system. Similarly and more recently, the Taliban exercised less than certain--and certainly less than the publicized--influence over the people of Afghanistan. 

By the same token, we have long been used to the idea that the Nazis proscribed jazz and sought to ban it from every corner of the Reich. To the ideologists of National Socialism, it was music of racial impurity, lumped in with other examples of entartete Kunst or "degenerate art," damned as "Judaeo-Negroid" and not fit for the ears of good Germans. In recent years, this rather one-dimensional picture has begun to shift significantly. 

One tiny example suggests the complexity of the real situation: the strange tale of guitarist Django Reinhardt, who managed not only to survive but to thrive in Nazi-occupied France, despite the fact that he was a gypsy, and a handicapped gypsy at that, thanks to the patronage and the protection of a jazz-loving Luftwaffe officer. Those last four words represent such an oxymoron that most recent encyclopedia entries on Django, who died half a century ago in 1953, make no mention whatever of Oberleutnant Dietrich Schulz-Koehn.

One of the strangest photographs of the war was taken by Schulz-Koehn outside La Cigale, a jazz club in Paris. It shows a gypsy (Django), four Africans and a Jew posed smiling beside a fellow officer. The Germans were there not to arrest these men but to listen to them play. With its whisper of collaboration, this remains an awkward detail for jazz fans to deal with, but it is even more unsettling, given the prevailing notion of the Nazis' attitude toward jazz.

There have been a number of attempts to rewrite this odd corner of popular music history. Michael Zwerin's La Tristesse de Saint Louis: Swing under the Nazis took its title from the habit of disguising jazz tunes--in this case "St. Louis Blues"--from the authorities under safely translated titles. The story of wartime swing is also told in a chapter in Hitler's Airwaves, a study of propaganda broadcasting under the Third Reich written by business executive Horst J.P. Bergmeier and economist Rainer E. Lotz. Now, though, their exploration of the period has been taken a step further and given additional flesh in an ambitious box set of music with the arresting title Swing Tanzen Verboten: Swing Music and Nazi Propaganda during World War II, just released by the English firm Proper Records with text by Dutch jazz expert Joop Visser. Its four CDs are an eye-opening experience, not so much musically, though there are fine cuts by Reinhardt, but because they raise the possibility that far from banning jazz, the Nazi authorities were aware of and tried to harness some of its appeal.

Imagine for a moment that you are a British or American jazz fan in wartime scanning the airwaves in hopes of finding some familiar music. Out of the ether a male voice begins to sing a familiar melody. "I'm the Sheik of Araby,/Your love belongs to me./At night, when you're asleep/into your tent I'll creep./The stars that shine above/will light a way to love./You'll rule this land with me/the Sheik of Araby." Before the war you heard umpteen versions of this song, which was inspired by RudolphValentino in The Sheik. Even if a band didn't have a singer, most fans could mouth the words. But this time, something strange happens. After that first verse, a voice cuts across the music: "Here is Mr. Churchill's latest song." The melody stays the same, but the words are unfamiliar. "I'm afraid of Germany/her planes are beating me./At night, when I should sleep,/into the Anderson I must creep./Although I'm England's leading man/I'm led to the cellar by ten./A leader in the cellar each night/that's the only damned way I can fight." 

That was certainly not the way Ted Snyder, Harry B. Smith and Frances Wheeler wrote it, so jazz fans will rightly insist on some personnel details for this curious performance. The band included Riimis van den Broek, Helmuth Friedrich and Ferri Juza on horns, Franz Muck on piano and the Krupa-like Fritz "Freddy" Brocksieper on drums. The conductor of the orchestra was a man called Lutz Templin, but he'd ceded nominal control to the singer Charlie Schwedler. "The Sheik of Araby" was one side of the first record issued in late 1940 on the Klarinette & Mandoline imprint, soon to be familiar from its maroon label and K&M prefix. As those altered lyrics suggest, the artists--Charlie and His Orchestra--weren't merely German swing enthusiasts flouting their leaders' disapproval. They were government employees broadcasting to the enemy in the enemy's own language and in a musical form that their employers were nominally committed to stamping out. Though less well-known than the infamous Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce) or Axis Sally (Mildred Gillars), who broadcast on behalf of the fascist regimes, they were an important part of the Reich's propaganda effort to smuggle a defeatist message into British and American homes.

The history of wartime jazz abounds with such ironies. That a form of music proscribed as "degenerate" should become an instrument of state policy seems more than a little perverse. Within weeks of Hitler's coming to power in March 1933, the new Nazi government's broadcasting authority announced the banishment of swing and hot music from the airwaves. Jazz had long been suspect and such a directive was inevitable, but in practice, it would be a further two years before Eugen Hadamovsky, the program director of RRG, could announce that "as of today, nigger jazz is finally switched off on the German radio." [Wasn't this just a programming decision? Jazz certainly was not banned from society; it continued to be performed in the German cinema, for example in films featuring Marika Rökk.]

There were no more consensuses in government circles about what defined jazz than there was in the jazz clubs and cellars of Berlin and Frankfurt, where such matters were debated as passionately as in New York or London. From an ideological point of view, jazz was "Judaeo-Negroid" music and thus complicit in the "shame of Versailles." From a Nazi point of view, defeat in the First World War was the result of Jewish treachery at home and led to still further racial defilement, most hurtfully symbolized by the presence of black French colonial troops in the occupied Rhineland. The distorted rhythms and "atonality" of jazz might originally have seemed an unconscious expression of "Negroid" sexuality, but they became--to Nazi ears--part of a new Jewish fifth column, a sinister conspiracy to undermine Aryan culture. [After elaborating this caricature, Morton tells us in the next paragraph that this really was not the consensus : it was the opinion of Rosenberg but not of Goebbels.]

The more extreme exponents of anti-Semitism and cultural nationalism like ideologue Alfred Rosenberg's Kampfbund fur Deutsche Kultur (Campaign for German Culture), would have happily cauterized cultural modernism and replaced it with a fey folk culture. To a degree, Hitler was of similar mind, but Hitler's views on music and art were inchoate and largely unconsidered, expressing personal knee jerks rather than a coherent aesthetic philosophy. Much more significant to this story was the more thoughtful and sophisticated approach of his propaganda minister Josef Goebbels. Whatever else he might have been, Goebbels was a man of some culture and viscerally opposed to the populist strain that ran through the lower ranks of the Nazi Party. He was also profoundly convinced that the radio loudspeaker was the key instrument in the struggle to maintain national unity and resistance to the forces of "Bolshevism" (a term almost as amorphous and cloudy as "jazz"). 

The piano-playing, widely read Goebbels saw an urgent need to maintain a certain level of sophistication in German broadcasting. There was no such consensus within his ministry. His deputy Hans Hinkel would have sanctioned nothing but "good German music," which usually meant ersatz folk songs and oompah bands. Surprisingly, given his somewhat exaggerated enthusiasm for Wagner and Bruckner (light operetta was probably more his speed), Hitler took a generally pragmatic view and in summer 1942, according to transcriptions of his table talk, was suggesting that propaganda broadcasts directed at Britain and America should contain a proportion of musical material that would appeal to such audiences. This was the policy that would prevail and would lead to the formation of Charlie and His Orchestra.

However ironic the story of wartime swing might seem, it is also full of gaps and occlusions. Jazz fans are as addicted to gaps in information as to the known details, and there is a perverse appeal in the Proper set's fragmentary discographies and obscure personnel’s. The man chosen to lead the propaganda orchestra, saxophonist and violinist Lutz Templin, was not a card-carrying Nazi and seemed to have no strong political convictions. He had no strong musical ideology either. There is a certain mythology that Templin played hot music. Indeed, it's probably safer to talk about German swing than German jazz, since there was little hot playing to be heard until the bebop revolution swept in at the end of the war and young men like the Mangelsdorff brothers in Frankfurt, Albert and Emil, began to construct a new German jazz inspired by the most advanced American models. For the propaganda swingers of the war years Paul Whiteman's much-derided but hugely successful symphonic jazz was regarded as the acme of taste.

Five years ago, I spoke to a few surviving musicians of the period, for a BBC documentary series on wartime and propaganda swing. None remembered Lutz Templin as anything other than a competent player and leader, and this is borne out by the cuts on Swing Tanzen Verboten; they're competent, but mechanical and rather soulless, and there is certainly no sign that any of these players ached to fire off a hot solo. A few of those I spoke with remembered or had heard of Charlie Schwedler as a smooth opportunist, happy to lend his light voice and unctuous personality to whatever message was required of him. [You didn't really expect a fair assessment from a post-war writer, did you?] Only drummer Freddie Brocksieper commanded anything like admiration. One elderly man, who'd played clarinet in a wartime orchestra in Hanover, and who declined to be named on air, said that Freddy was a finer musician than any of the Americans and the only one who had any real understanding of hot jazz. Musicianship, though, was secondary to a political message, and whatever their private instincts, these players must have been relieved to be not just surviving the war but seemingly contributing to the effort in a relatively risk-free capacity. 

RRG's "Political Cabaret" began broadcasting on shortwave to the United States early in 1940. Schwedler was, it seems, an occasional contributor, but it was later in the year before Charlie and His Orchestra was properly convened and began to issue those K&M discs that now represent the ambiguous legacy of wartime propaganda swing. Propaganda music had been made and broadcast since the early days of the so-called Phony War. The first listed by Bergmeier and Lotz is a sourly anti-Semitic reworking of the old Protestant hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers," recorded on October 11, 1939, by one Erhard Bauschke and his orchestra. The sentiments are generic and predictable; the rhyming is, by comparison with what followed, fairly sophisticated: "Onward conscript army, /marching on to war, /fight and die for Jewry, /as we did before." Later on, the propaganda lyricists had to adapt to events as quickly as possible. The Gershwins' "They All Laughed" provided a useful template, especially in the dark days after Dunkirk when it was thought the British might be intimidated into defeatism. "They all laughed at Germany and its leader/when he said that Germany will rise/...They all laughed at Germany wanting colonies/said, she was reaching for the moon!/Now it's a joke to deny German victory/wise guys have to change their tunes." George was already dead by this time, but Ira, the lyricist, must have been turning uncomfortably in his sleep as lines like these went out over the airwaves. 

Just as "St. Louis Blues" was translated as "La Tristesse de Saint Louis" in occupied France to keep the suspect title from the ears of Wehrmacht soldiers, so the W.C. Handy song was also turned into a propaganda vehicle, introduced by Charlie as the lament of a Negro working on the London docks during the blackout. "I hate to see the evenin' sun go down/'cause the German, he done bombed this town." The revisions, here and elsewhere in Charlie's repertoire hardly constitute deathless blues poetry, but they survive in a curiously subversive relation to the original. Just as jazz musicians understood the power of transforming a light and simple song into something dark and resonant--John Coltrane's reworking of "My Favorite Things" would be a good example--so the very familiarity of these songs increased their propaganda value; given that British and American audiences could hum the melody, how long would it be before they treacherously sang the new words as well? It is as unwise to underestimate as it is difficult to quantify the impact on listeners--and, as Goebbels hoped, sophisticated listeners--in the Allied countries. 

The success of the German propaganda effort can only be judged in the context of ultimate defeat, but it is clear that during the war Goebbels and his more responsive officials found a way of harnessing modern technology with the most flexible and responsive form in popular music and creating a propaganda weapon of considerable power. Some "black" stations, like Radio Arnhem, were conceived with such skill that Allied troops and even some of their intelligence officers were convinced that they were listening to the real thing. The supply of English-speaking Nazi sympathizers willing to broadcast on behalf of the Axis was never large. For all the publicity given to "Lord Haw-Haw" and to Ezra Pound, for his insane ramblings [more of Morton's objectivity!] on behalf of Mussolini, they were exceptions. Music proved to be a more potent and a more insidious propaganda device. 

Listening to the tunes on Swing Tanzen Verboten is a fairly dispiriting business. Nothing here merits a second listen on purely musical grounds [Morton would die rather than admit that this is good music], and yet these strange survivals offer important historical insights. To repeat, it has been casually accepted that the Nazis and the Soviets "banned" jazz. Neither is more than hypothetically true. But while it's long been understood that the Soviet authorities made a distinction between jazz as the spontaneous expression of a beleaguered proletariat and jazz as a bourgeois affectation, a similar finessing hasn't until recently been applied to the situation in Nazi Germany. The survival of jazz under the Third Reich is a curious story of oversight and tacit tolerance. 

The experience of Django Reinhardt remains the best clue to the reality. The same regime that first attempted to expunge the new Germany of the taint of jazz also kept many of the country's swing musicians in employment. The idea of Goebbels as a jazz fan is fantastic nonsense, the kind of thing Mel Brooks or Woody Allen might turn into a screenplay, but Goebbels understood the semantics of jazz, its ambiguous resonance of both servitude and freedom, better than most of his colleagues. Jazz, we have been told in film after film and novel after novel is the quintessential music of resistance and rebellion. In Josef Skvorecky's fantasy The Bass Saxophone a single note from that improbable instrument is a clarion of freedom. But this is an unduly sentimental picture. Jazz is an existential form. It changes and adapts to circumstance and it takes on unexpected colorations, not just black and blue.




Brian Morton is the editor of Jazz Review (UK) and author of short studies of Woodrow Wilson and Edgar Allan Poe (both Haus Publishing). This article appeared in the 15 September 2003 issue of The Nation.

13 March 2010

James Traficant states the Obvious



Traficant states that he was framed by Israeli interests, after they could not bring about his electoral defeat, because he had exposed the framing of John Demjanjuk in 1983. A Jewish member of the Justice Department, he says, suborned perjury in the Demjanjuk case.

Although Traficant concedes, at the interviewer's frantic prompting, that the Israeli Supreme Court set Demjanjuk free because they are fine fellows, this concession comes only after Traficant has suggested otherwise. The Israeli Supreme Court let Demjanjuk go because exculpatory evidence published by Trafficant could not be refuted, and because Congressman Traficant was threatening that the State of Israel would lose its $15 billion in annual U.S. aid if Demjanjuk were convicted and executed on what was demonstrably a false charge.

Traficant goes on to state that, in addition to corrupting the U.S. Department of Justice, Israeli interests have a "stranglehold" on both houses of Congress and has the United States involved in Israeli expansionist wars that are not in the U.S. interest. He also mentions that they control much of the U.S. mass-media (which includes Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, the most blatantly and aggressively pro-Israel news network, on which this interview aired).

Greta van Susteren's shock at this statement of what should be obvious is quite annoying. It makes her appear brainwashed.

The Shah of Iran already stated the essence of this 36 years ago.

09 March 2010

Attack of the Conservatives

National-Socialism in Germany had to overcome not only Marxism, but conservative tendencies as well. The non-marxist German resistance to Hitler consisted of Christian fanatics and aristocrats. These were people who either wanted things to go back to the way they used to be, which was obviously a vain wish, or in the case of the Christians they couldn't tolerate the necessities of coping and surviving in a world of conflict: they take what they think is the moral high ground on the premise that everybody should be as harmless (and useless) as they.

This is worth discussing partly because we face similar phenomena today. In the 1960s George Lincoln Rockwell found himself constantly attacked by so-called conservatives, even though he had been a conservative himself and penned a couple of articles for American Mercury a few years earlier.

Dr. William Pierce also took a dim view of conservatives. In The Turner Diaries, there is a character who is a conservative, Powell, who somehow got into the Organization and had to be killed because he started to oppose the necessary actions that the Organization was taking.

On the other hand, Dr. Pierce didn't go out of his way to pick fights with conservatives. Neither did Hitler; he tried to get along with the traditional institutions. I see no use in picking fights with conservatives as some people are prone to do: they are not the people that we want to fight; they are people that we should be able to win over, if reason has any persuasive power.

I think it's reasonable to view Pat Buchanan's supporters, for example, as a pool of people who only have one foot in the mainstream, and the frequency with which Buchanan uses expressions like "blood and soil" implies a thinly suppressed radicalism. At the same time, however, since Buchanan makes no radical public stand, many of his hangers-on are weak-kneed individuals (and you can find out what I mean by making some posts at Buchanan.org) that might desert him if he ever made clear what blood and soil implies.

Buchanan himself, likewise, does not attack us, so far as I know. Whenever some race-radical was a guest on Crossfire, if Buchanan was one of the two hosts, he always seemed to try to be fair.

Recently however there seems to have been a convergence of namby-pambies attacking us, the people of radical outlook. These seem to be conservatives of an older stripe who hold the very traditional view that race matters -- a completely mainstream view 80 years ago -- but haven't progressed beyond that.

It doesn't seem to occur to these people that there must have been a weakness in their conservative worldview or it wouldn't have been defeated -- and it has been defeated utterly. To think that there is any possibility for unmodified old-style conservatism to defeat the forces of decay that sidelined them long ago is as ludicrous as Ehud Olmert's imagining that he could succeed in Lebanon in 2006 using exactly the same tactics with which Ariel Sharon had failed a few years earlier.

What are the problems with the conservative worldview? Fundamentally it is not a rational way of looking at the world: it's an attachment to current or past circumstances and institutions. These people seem to base their self-esteem on being in accord with those institutions. Many of them are limited in their outlook by Christianity or the Constitution or both. It may be possible to reconcile racism with Christianity and the Constitution, but it is not possible to win the struggle for racial survival based on them.

How would it be possible to solve the racial problem that exists in the United States today while respecting everybody's Constitutional rights? Or while practicing to be meek as a lamb so that one might someday be patted on the head by a celestial Jesus? These are crippling fixations.

Many of them won't even admit any explicit interest in race, but instead want to talk about cultural traditions. Others seem to think that the free-market ideology offers a kind of back-door solution to the racial problem, at least as far as Blacks are concerned. In both instances, racial concern lies in the background of an ideological charade, and it's a charade that really won't accomplish anything for that cause.

Anybody that intends to aid the survival of his race first needs to get rid of any traditional elements of his worldview that make this an unacceptable endeavor. Then he needs to think honestly and unashamedly about how this could be accomplished, and act accordingly. Conservatives seem to fall down in the departments of both thought and action, because they want to stay respectable. I would submit that a man confident in his own worth and his own mind doesn't worry greatly about such a concern, which amounts to worrying about what other people might think.

Okay, so these people are limited. They are still, as Rockwell said, "in the conservative playpen," not venturing outside the bounds of respectability defined by traditional institutions, with considerable influence there as in almost all aspects of American political life from Jewish-controlled mass-media.

I have no quarrel with these limited people -- the world is full of people limited in various ways -- except that some of them want to evangelize their limitations. Just yesterday I was directed by Vic Fury to a blog entry by "Guy White" who, believe it or not, advocates attacking historical revisionism and historical revisionists, whom he calls psychos, without even having a genuine picture of what the revisionist position on the Holocaust is. It is impossible to correct this person. I posted an informative response to his blog, which you may read below, but it did not pass moderation.

Guy White considers himself to be in the same movement, "White Nationalism," as somebody like me. But according to him I would be an embarrassment to that movement because I can ask questions and make observations that frighten him. According to Guy White, I should be attacked and silenced because I am more radical than he. Guy White, by the way, is not the only exponent of this viewpoint; you can find it, as I mentioned, among some of the people on Buchanan.org.

I find this a very a destructive new wrinkle because it tends to lead us to devote some energy to struggling against each other instead of directing that energy toward the correct purpose. I wonder who the godfather of this attitude is. It definitely isn't Pat Buchanan.

The Jews, and the Left in general, understand a principle that these particular conservatives never figured out. I saw it once in a book about the 60s New Left group, Students for a Democratic Society. In that book, SDS figure Tom Hayden was quoted as saying this, or words to this effect: Extremism produces gradualism. In other words, the most extreme factions make the less extreme factions look moderate by comparison. The extreme factions serve the purpose of shifting the range of public discourse in their direction.

If the most extreme elements are eliminated, then the less extreme elements are suddenly placed on the very fringe, and are thus much less likely to be taken seriously. If Alex Linder is silenced, Jared Taylor becomes an extremist.

You have to wonder what motivates somebody to want to accomplish that. If Hunter Wallace can't stomach Alex Linder's views, and if Guy White has no grasp of revisionism, all they have to do is remain silent on the matter, or say, I'm not with them. To engage in gratuitous infighting while urging the destruction of the ideological vanguard of the movement could hardly be more counterproductive.





This comment did not get past moderation on Guy White's blog. I leave it up to you to figure out why.

Mr. Guy White:

It would be nice if you at least knew something about “Holocaust Denial” (the term used by the enemies of historical revisionism as pertains to the Jews’ Holocaust Myth) before attacking it. You are attacking a strawman of your own creation.

You say: “The belief is based on wildly unreasonable statements like “all Jews are liars” and “all Jews are conspiring against us”. Without these two beliefs, Holocaust denial is impossible.”

You could not be more wrong. I have never heard any revisionist argument based on the premise that all Jews are either liars or conspirators. There are some lying conspirators among the Jews, but most of them are simply believing what they have been told, which our people unfortunately also do.

We saw something very similar in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with a handful of politically motivated liars convincing most of the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction, and a number of other inflammatory lies (genocide of the Kurds, assassination attempt on Bush Senior, intention to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991) that I was able to disprove with the resources of a public library and the internet. You will find however that even today people who had the greatest emotional investment in the anti-Saddam hysteria will still claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs even though Bush himself has said that there weren’t any, because sources like Newsmax have given these true believers the excuses that they needed to go on believing. The Holocaust story is very much like that.

“The question is why is it that hundreds of thousands of Jews are telling us the same story….”

There are very few Jews, indeed very few people of any ethnicity, that claim to know anything about gassings. I have yet to hear of such a witness whose story didn’t include impossible or ridiculous details, like crematorium-smoke that changed color according to the nationality of the Jew being cremated. As a matter of fact, any Jew that claims to have seen smoke coming out of a crematorium stack on a regular basis – which a number of them do claim, probably because they heard it from Elie Wiesel – is a liar: crematoria do not emit smoke. This is not a matter of calling hundreds of thousands of Jews liars: it is a matter of recognizing the power that liars can have in an atmosphere of group-think.

“As with all events, different people have slightly different description of events, but the Holocaust narrative is substantially similar, to use a legal term.”

The story has changed greatly since 1945. In 1945 Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald were claimed to be sites of gassing, and witnesses at Nuremberg testified to that effect. In 1945 it was alleged that Jews had been made into soap and human-skin lampshades. Some people still repeat these stories because no great publicity was ever given to the fact that historians had discarded them.

“We are told that Jews are all conspiring to build fake gas chambers, to tell fake stories, to get fake tattoos with fake Auschwitz numbers.”

It isn’t a matter of building fake gas-chambers. It’s a matter of calling something a gas-chamber that is not.

There was however a hole jack-hammered into the roof of Krema I after the war by the Communist government of Poland to make the structure consistent with stories that Zyklon-B pellets were dropped in through such a hole. No similar holes exist in the roofs of the collapsed Kremas; hence Professor Faurisson’s dictum, “No holes, no Holocaust.”

“Imagine if you met a Zulu who was constantly railing about the Xhosa all being liars, who all conspire to make up lies, who are engaged in a secret genocide of Zulus, and when you asked him for proof, the Zulu would tell you that it’s impossible to find this information because Xhosa have such a stronghold on power and such amazing (universal) discipline that there isn’t the slightest leak.”

The Holocaust itself is a conspiracy theory of that kind. The theory is that the Germans rounded up millions of Jews, transported them hundreds of miles, and finally used the unprecedented and to this day unrepeated technique of mass-gassing to dispatch them (even though shooting them near their habitations would have been much simpler and much less expensive) without leaving any kind of document trail, except some documents that are interpreted by the believers in this conspiracy theory as using “code words.”

Most of the 4 million or so alleged to have been gassed are supposed to have been killed with diesel exhaust, which, although it can be sooty and unpleasant, is not really toxic, unlike gasoline exhaust. The more frequently discussed murder-agent, Zyklon-B, is a fumigant that takes several hours to out-gas, and is hence utterly unsuitable for the legendary gassing of a new group every 20 minutes (Walter Lueftl’s observation).

“I will criticize the Jews for real acts as much as the next guy, but it has to be real acts such as support for immigration, not lunacy that you just invented and for which you have no proof. (“All European Jews went to Russia” … even though no Russian is aware of this and no records – government documents, photographs, etc – showing mass movement of millions exist.)”

Who says that all Jews went to Russia? The thesis of Walter Sanning’s The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry is that Jews in Soviet-occupied eastern Poland were largely evacuated eastward before the German attack in 1941, because the Soviets had been planning their own attack and they knew that the area was going to be a war-zone. Menachem Begin was one of those Jews evacuated.

“You are an embarrassment. I don’t want to be in the same movement with you for the same reason I would not want you or any other psycho to be in my house.”

I am sorry to be ostensibly in the same movement with somebody that doesn’t find out what a position is before he attacks it. I am in the truth movement first and foremost.

Hadding Scott

08 March 2010

Response to an alleged White Nationalist who attacks Historical Revisionism

This comment did not get past moderation on Guy White's blog. I leave it up to you to figure out why.

Mr. Guy White:

It would be nice if you at least knew something about “Holocaust Denial” (the term used by the enemies of historical revisionism as pertains to the Jews’ Holocaust Myth) before attacking it. You are attacking a strawman of your own creation.

You say: “The belief is based on wildly unreasonable statements like 'all Jews are liars' and 'all Jews are conspiring against us.' Without these two beliefs, Holocaust denial is impossible.”

You could not be more wrong. I have never heard any revisionist argument based on the premise that all Jews are either liars or conspirators. There are some lying conspirators among the Jews, but most of them are simply believing what they have been told, which our people unfortunately also do.

We saw something very similar in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with a handful of politically motivated liars convincing most of the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction, and a number of other inflammatory lies (genocide of the Kurds, assassination attempt on Bush Senior, intention to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991) that I was able to disprove with the resources of a public library and the internet. You will find however that even today people who had the greatest emotional investment in the anti-Saddam hysteria will still claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs even though Bush himself has said that there weren’t any, because sources like Newsmax have given these true believers the excuses that they needed to go on believing. The Holocaust story is very much like that.

“The question is why is it that hundreds of thousands of Jews are telling us the same story….”

There are very few Jews, indeed very few people of any ethnicity, that claim to know anything about gassings. I have yet to hear of such a witness whose story didn’t include impossible or ridiculous details, like crematorium-smoke that changed color according to the nationality of the Jew being cremated. As a matter of fact, any Jew that claims to have seen smoke coming out of a crematorium stack on a regular basis – which a number of them do claim, probably because they heard it from Elie Wiesel – is a liar: crematoria do not emit smoke. This is not a matter of calling hundreds of thousands of Jews liars: it is a matter of recognizing the power that liars can have in an atmosphere of group-think.

“As with all events, different people have slightly different description of events, but the Holocaust narrative is substantially similar, to use a legal term.”

The story has changed greatly since 1945. In 1945 Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald were claimed to be sites of gassing, and witnesses at Nuremberg testified to that effect. In 1945 it was alleged that Jews had been made into soap and human-skin lampshades. Some people still repeat these stories because no great publicity was ever given to the fact that historians had discarded them.

“We are told that Jews are all conspiring to build fake gas chambers, to tell fake stories, to get fake tattoos with fake Auschwitz numbers.”

It isn’t a matter of building fake gas-chambers. It’s a matter of calling something a gas-chamber that is not.

There was however a hole jack-hammered into the roof of Krema I after the war by the Communist government of Poland to make the structure consistent with stories that Zyklon-B pellets were dropped in through such a hole. No similar holes exist in the roofs of the collapsed Kremas; hence Professor Faurisson’s dictum, “No holes, no Holocaust.”

“Imagine if you met a Zulu who was constantly railing about the Xhosa all being liars, who all conspire to make up lies, who are engaged in a secret genocide of Zulus, and when you asked him for proof, the Zulu would tell you that it’s impossible to find this information because Xhosa have such a stronghold on power and such amazing (universal) discipline that there isn’t the slightest leak.”

The Holocaust itself is a conspiracy theory of that kind. The theory is that the Germans rounded up millions of Jews, transported them hundreds of miles, and finally used the unprecedented and to this day unrepeated technique of mass-gassing to dispatch them (even though shooting them near their habitations would have been much simpler and much less expensive) without leaving any kind of document trail, except some documents that are interpreted by the believers in this conspiracy theory as using “code words.”

Most of the 4 million or so alleged to have been gassed are supposed to have been killed with diesel exhaust, which, although it can be sooty and unpleasant, is not really toxic, unlike gasoline exhaust. The more frequently discussed murder-agent, Zyklon-B, is a fumigant that takes several hours to out-gas, and is hence utterly unsuitable for the legendary gassing of a new group every 20 minutes (Walter Lueftl’s observation).

“I will criticize the Jews for real acts as much as the next guy, but it has to be real acts such as support for immigration, not lunacy that you just invented and for which you have no proof. ('All European Jews went to Russia' … even though no Russian is aware of this and no records – government documents, photographs, etc – showing mass movement of millions exist.)”

Who says that all Jews went to Russia? The thesis of Walter Sanning’s The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry is that Jews in Soviet-occupied eastern Poland were largely evacuated eastward before the German attack in 1941, because the Soviets had been planning their own attack and they knew that the area was going to be a war-zone. Menachem Begin was one of those Jews evacuated.

“You are an embarrassment. I don’t want to be in the same movement with you for the same reason I would not want you or any other psycho to be in my house.”

I am sorry to be ostensibly in the same movement with somebody that doesn’t find out what a position is before he attacks it. I am in the truth movement first and foremost.

Hadding Scott

06 March 2010

Jews are Racial Aliens, say researchers

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'One of the researchers involved in this study of genetic similarity between Jews and Arabs, Dr. Mark Jobling, denies that the study could have political implications, but he considers that question in terms of whether genetic similarity could bring peace between Arabs and Jews. There is another aspect, the bearing that genetic dissimilarity has on relations between Jews and White people. The sociobiological implication is obvious -- i.e., as Kevin MacDonald says, that the Jews are a genetically alien population with interests inimical to those of the White majority -- and, if sociobiology were given the consideration in our politics that it deserves, this would result in a movement to curtail Jewish influence in Western societies.

Neither Jews nor Arabs (apart from some of the population of the Arabian Peninsula, the true Arabs) are a pure Semitic people. Both have significant Negro admixture, as is evident for example in the Negro-wool seen on the heads of many Jews like Alan Dershowitz.

No doubt the Jews and Arabs, being genetically related, also share some psychological characteristics, for example, as I see it, a certain unreasonableness and inclination to support with great stubbornness some representations of reality that are demonstrably false but socially useful for them. The Jew and the Arab, compared to Europids, are more attuned to "social truth" than to the world as it is, and their genetic kinship would partially explain that.

This finding of course directly contradicts the theory put forth by Jew Arthur Koestler (The Thirteenth Tribe) that Ashkenazi Jews are not genetic Jews but converts from the Khazar people, a theory cherished by some Christians who want to excuse the "real Jews" (Sephardim) from blame for the Bolshevik Revolution etc., overlooking that Sephardic Jews, while generally not as rabid and obviously deleterious (and inbred) as "Russian Jews," have also done bad things in the West. There have been slave-traders like Aaron Lopez, opium magnate David Sassoon, Spain's Grand Inquisitor Miguel de Torquemada, and many other nefarious examples.

The important point is that the Jews are an alien genetic population and not, as they began to pretend during the reign of Napoleon, people just like us who merely practice a different religion.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'

BBC News Online: Sci/Tech


Wednesday, 10 May, 2000, 06:54 GMT 07:54 UK

Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'


BBC
They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years.

The striking similarities in their biology have just been revealed in a study of over 1,300 men in almost 30 countries worldwide.

Scientists compared the men's Y chromosomes, the tiny structures within cells that carry the genetic instructions that tell a developing foetus to become a boy.

The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine.

Genetic signatures

Throughout human history, alterations have occurred in the sequence of chemical bases that make up the DNA in the Y chromosome, leaving variations that can be pinpointed with modern genetic techniques.

Related populations carry the same specific variations. In this way, scientists can track descendants of large populations and determine their common ancestors.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese.

These signatures were significantly different from non-Jewish men outside of the Middle East. This means Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other, genetically speaking, than they do with any of the wider communities in which they might live.

Good opportunity

Dr Mark Jobling of Leicester University, UK, one of the authors of the new study, told the BBC: "The kind of DNA we have used to analyse this question is the human Y chromosome. This represents only 2% of our genetic material and it is passed down from father to son.

"This makes it particularly interesting to use in a study of Jewish populations because Jewishness is passed down from the mother to children - it is maternally inherited. So using a paternally inherited piece of DNA gives us a good opportunity to see the signal of mixture with other populations if this has occurred.

"The fact that we don't see it suggests that after the Diaspora these populations really have managed to maintain their Jewish heritage.

Dr Jobling dismissed the idea that the study could have any political implications. "It seems that in many of these situations where groups are in conflict with each other they are likely to be pretty much genetically indistinguishable, and this factor, to the peoples involved in these conflicts, clearly isn't the point and isn't likely to change their behaviour very much."